by Sharon Caldwell | Administrative Team, Communication, Educational Program Coordination, Faculty, Montessori Administrators, Montessori Teachers, School Leadership, School Resources, The International Montessori Council, Video, Webcasts / IMC
For Montessori educators, who strive to cultivate holistic development in their students, coaching has emerged as an invaluable tool for professional growth and excellence. Together, we will examine the definition and essence of coaching as a tool for Montessori guides, emphasizing its alignment with Montessori philosophy through personalized support and reflective practice, and discussing its unique benefits. We will conclude by introducing an enriching opportunity for you to offer this type of individually-tailored support to your classroom guides, providing them the resources and assistance they need along their transformative journey to fulfill the role of the prepared adult.
by Sharon Caldwell | Early Adolescence (12-15), Later Adolescence (15-18), Lower Elementary (6-9), Montessori Curriculum, Montessori Education, Montessori Parenting, Montessori Teachers, Primary (3-6), School Leadership, The International Montessori Council, Upper Elementary (9-12)
Sharon Caldwell and Hillary Drinkell presented this Power Point at the 2013 IMC conference.
Download File
by Sharon Caldwell | Imagination, MFA, Montessori Curriculum, Science, Writing
Begun by Sharon Caldwell
NOTE TO THE READER: This page is a work in progress. I will continue to update it as I find more resources and information. Please email me at sharoncaldwell@montessori.org with suggestions and requests. Please also check out the Cosmic Education section in Links. Most of my favorite links are there and may not be duplicated in this article.
We must be careful not to fix the details of the Great Lessons so that they become so precisely accurate that they become mere catalogs of facts. The need to remain stories of inspiration. We as teachers need to be clear that these Lessons must set the children’s hearts and minds on fire. This is our first priority. As the children break off from the Great Lessons to do research, there they will find the facts. – Robyn – Montessori-L discussion Group
Theory of Cosmic Education:
The AMI elementary trainers are unanimous in saying that we should present all the Great Stories within the first 2 – 6 weeks of the school year and that there should be no follow-up work assigned. – John Snyder, Austin Montessori School. (in an email to Montessori-L discussion list).
If the children are not doing spontaneous follow-up work it means they aren’t inspired – the teacher must then work out why her lessons are not exciting the children. It is also OK if some children do not do follow-up work. They are hearing the stories and also hearing discussions that lead from them as the teacher continues to unpack the stories as the year progresses. The stories are not meant to “teach” factual knowledge but rather to evoke a sense of wonder and a deep appreciation of the interconnectedness of everything. They are intended to spark an understanding of the Cosmic Task of Man.
Cuevas, Eduardo J. G. Liberty: Spiritual Freedom and Moral Responsibility. 25th International Montessori Congress Papers.
Duffy, M & D. Cosmic Education in the Elementary Classroom, Parent Child Press, 2002.
Grazzini, Baiba Krumins, “The Role of the Disciplines for Cosmic Education”, Communications 2006/1, 64 – 74.
Hayes, Mary Montessori’s View of Cosmic Education, 25th International Montessori Congress Papers.
Hilson, Patricia. Laying the Foundations for Cosmic Education in the Child 3 – 6 Years.
Montessori, Maria. To Educate the Human Potential. – Especially important is the first essay: “The Six Year Old Confronted with the Cosmic Plan.”
ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE
Some Great Books to inspire extensions from First Great Lesson:
Wikipedia History of Earth is a good place to start looking for info.
The Authors, How To Create a Flawless Universe in Just Eight Days, Godfather Publications, No Location, 597b.
– Yes, this is a real book – but written with tongue firmly locked in cheek. 6 – 12s really enjoy it.
STORY OF LIFE
PHOTOSYNTHESIS
www.naturedetectives.org.uk – Why leaves change colour. Good explanation of photosynthesis.
For a more detailed explanation of photosynthesis
CLASSIFICATION OF LIVING THINGS
Parallel to the story of life you begin to explore Classifications/Taxonomy. Depending on the background of your students you can start off with simple “Who am I?” activities to extend exposure to the natural world – either using objects (shells, etc.) or model animals (must be realistic) or picture cards. With children who are reading, you can use “First Stories” which combine short descriptive paragraphs with names and pictures of plants and animals.
Bang, Molly and Chisholm, Penny. Living Sunlight: How Plants Bring the Earth to Life. Blue Sky Press. 2009. [Recommended by Priscilla Spears.]
THE STORY OF HUMANS
www.handprint.com – This is one of my favorite teacher resource sites, although older children enjoy it too. I love it especially because it highlights the hand-brain connection so integral to Dr. Montessori’s thinking.
Human Migration:
THE STORY OF WRITING
A simple version of the story with nice clear graphics that can be hand-drawn on a whiteboard while telling the story: http://www.moteaco.com/albums/greatlessons/story4.html
For more detailed lesson plans see Miss Barbara: www.missbarbara.net/thehistoryofwriting.html
Simple, uncluttered printable timeline: http://www.moteaco.com/albums/writing.html
Human History Timelines:
Christ as the center of human history – see www.montessoriforeveryone.com for a free download timeline. The instructions include some interesting information on dating. NOTE: This is a resource developed by Montessori educators of that faith. The same strategies can be used in many other ways
by Sharon Caldwell | Mathematics, Montessori Education, Online Learning
This is a first step to begin to identify good resources for online learning in Montessori settings.
Digital technology must not be thought of as something which replaces the conventional materials and modes of interaction, but as something that enhances the possibilities of exploring and enhancing exploration of the learning generated by Montessori “keys”.
I am interested in exploring further applications and adding to this resource – please feel free to email me at sharoncaldwell@montessori.org if you would like to further explore these ideas or share new resources you may find. It would also be great to get some feedback from a Montessori perspective as to how these resources are used and received by children in authentic Montessori contexts.
Some interesting links.
Maths Maps: A New Collaborative Project
Google Earth Resources for the Classroom
by Sharon Caldwell | Uncategorized
October 2013
Please note that this bibliography is an eclectic collection of resources that I have found useful in understanding the Montessori approach to writing and reading.
Download File
by Sharon Caldwell | Child's Work, Educational Program Coordination, Effective Boards, Lower Elementary (6-9), Montessori Curriculum, Montessori Education, Montessori Materials, Montessori Middle School, Montessori Secondary / High School, Montessori Teachers, Prepared Environment, Primary (3-6), School Leadership, The International Montessori Council, Upper Elementary (9-12)
Download PDF of Article: Workbooks – Is there a place for them in Authentic Montessori Education?
by Sharon Caldwell | Educational Program Coordination, Montessori Administrators, The International Montessori Council
It seems to me that independent, scientific proof of the success of the Montessori approach will do a lot of good for Montessori Schools — but it carries inherent dangers as well. When we judge whether something is effective or successful, we need to consider that definition of success in the context of our goals. The goals of Montessori education are substantially different from the goals of mass schooling.
Download PDF of article: How do we judge succces.pdf
Download File
by Sharon Caldwell | Children with Exceptionalities, MFA, Montessori Education
Darren (not his real name) has cerebral palsy. He was four years old when he came to our school. Although he was a pleasant child and tried to please, he had a very low level of concentration and had a tendency to wander off outside while holding pieces of materials. He also liked to chew things. This posed quite a challenge to us as our environment allowed free flow of children between indoors and out. Materials went missing (luckily most were found scattered around the lawn). He also tended to chew things, and tooth marks appeared on the Geometric Solids. We also discovered that Darren had a fascination for anything that turned, or could be swung. Our pencil sharpener couldn’t stand the use and eventually fell apart. He particularly enjoyed opening faucets (but strangely was not very interested in closing them!)
I was at my wits end when my brother, an Anthroposophic Art Therapist and guide at an Experiential Museum, suggested some special materials and activities. Among them materials we made available especially for Darren was a wind-up torch – a flashlight where the battery is recharged by winding. Darren loved this and would spend hours spinning the handle to get the light to shine. Another innovation was mounting a huge antique fishing reel vertically on a wall so that Darren could turn the handle with big sweeping movements, producing a wonderful cluck-cluck-cluck sound that was oddly soothing and didn’t seem to bother anyone in the environment. He taught Darren how to spin on the spot holding some object that he could watch going round and round. One day he painted a Chartres Labyrinth outside the classroom for Darren and the other children to walk, round and round – inwards and out. All of these activities seemed to quieten Darren and helped him concentrate.
After some time we realized that Darren was no longer spinning, but he was also no longer running outside with materials and had begun to choose work and was showing signs of, if not intense concentration, at least an ability to focus for a few minutes, and was no longer a disruption in the environment. We discovered that as long as we placed no demands at all on him, he would potter around all day, alternating between various practical life and sensorial activities, and exploring running water, stalking the chickens, watching birds in the tree outside, or very tentatively venturing up onto the climbing frame.
After he had been with us for about six months, Darren’s mother informed us that she could no longer keep him at our school as she did not have transport to bring him across town. He started at a regular day-care closer to home. Soon his mom emailed me that Darren was very unhappy and disruptive. He went to four different schools and was asked to leave all four because the teachers “found him impossible to handle.” At the last he was sitting on the floor for most of the day bashing his head (literally) against the wall and screaming. Then, six months after leaving, his mother was able to arrange transport and he came back to our school. We were worried that he had regressed to such an extend we would have to start again from scratch. I took out all the spinning work and prepared for a few weeks of disruption. We had a school meeting and the other children agreed that they would take turns to shadow Darren until he settled.
On his first day back, when I shook his hand and said “I’m so glad you’re back”’, Darren said “me also”, walked past me into the room and carried on as if he hadn’t left. Darren was able to find calm within, when he was in an environment which recognized him as an individual, and when he had adults and children who took the time to meet his needs rather than trying to find ways of making him meet theirs.
Why is it, that all too often, people who are strong, intelligent and endowed with all of natures gifts, feel that they need to force those who are weaker, for whom the world is most challenging, to comply with requirements and rules, meet objectives and standards which are not their own? Darren, and many other children whose lives are made miserable because they do not conform to some arbitrary definition of “normal” (not Dr. Montessori’s definition), because they cannot do the things expected for their age, have a right to happiness and peace. They have a right to be just who they are.
This story does not have a happy ending. When Nahoon Montessori closed at the end of 2007 Darren’s mom again had to search for a school. When I last spoke to her, told me he had been asked to leave two schools in three months as the teachers found him impossible to handle. I have since lost contact with a very special person who taught me so much.
I’m telling Darren’s story because he has counterparts in classrooms around the world. Dr. Montessori’s message gives us the tools to begin to understand how unrealistic demands cause many of the problems we see in children. It can help to remind us that although there will always be children with challenges we cannot solve, there are many who can be welcomed into our environments. We may not be able to teach them reading and writing and math, but maybe we can teach something more important, not only to these children but to all the others who are part of their lives. Every human being is valuable and deserves happiness – and we can give happiness. Every child in our school was enriched by their interactions with Darren and other children with exceptional needs and sometimes challenging behaviors. The children who were blessed by having intact neurological systems and anatomically near-perfect bodies learned about compassion and acceptance and humility. They learned that when you are blessed you need to share your ability and strength to gain the full value of those assets.
How do we measure outcomes such as these? Where does humanity rank against reading and numeracy? Are we prepared to look inward and see what defects of our own are preventing us from hearing the deep and authentic call from the child to give just that assistance which is truly needed, and then step back and make space for for each child to find his own answers?
Published in Tomorrow’s Child.
by Sharon Caldwell | Child's Work, Family Resources, MFA, Montessori Education, Montessori Family Life, Montessori Parenting, Montessori Teachers, Parent Education, Parenting on the Same Page
It makes no sense to me that a pedagogical approach based on spontaneous activity and free choice in the classroom would presume to dictate what a child should be doing at home. The idea of assigning homework is appropriated from the conventional schooling paradigm – sometimes because Montessori teachers have insufficient faith in the child or the Montessori approach, but more often to appease parents who are seduced by the notion that if children aren’t assigned some sort of “work” they will not do anything useful with their time.
The greatest help you can give your children is freedom to go about their own work in their own way, for in this matter your child knows better than you.
Maria Montessori, The Child, Society and the World, p. 5
Montessori-referenced arguments aside for the moment – there is plenty of opposition to homework even from conventional educators, who generally have fewer qualms about telling children what they should be learning and when. Despite many teachers’ claims to the contrary, there is no reliable evidence that increasing homework has any correlation to academic achievement. There is no reliable evidence that it has any non-academic benefits – such as promoting good work habits, either. Homework causes stress for the child and the family, often harming the parent/child relationship. Homework cuts into family time, and where homework is intended to be done with a parent, imposes choices made by the school over those made by the family. Homework is often dictated by the needs of the pre-planned syllabus and is not related in any way to the changing needs of a family or individual children.[1]
If a school, which has control of a child for the better part of the day still needs to assign work to be done at home, I would question what is happening in school. When most home-schooling families can cover the conventional school curriculum in between one and three hours a day why do schools need a child for five to six hours and then add on hours of homework in addition? There are many books and articles that state the case against homework in a regular schooling context far more comprehensively than is possible in this short article, so I will move on to an examination of the role of homework in the Montessori school.
There are many reasons why I would argue that “homework” (in the traditional sense, as teacher assigned activity) has no place in an authentic Montessori program. Firstly the Montessori approach is based on the understanding that children want to learn and have the ability to choose what they want to learn. Sometimes their learning looks more like play than work, but it is no less important to their development. Careful observation of the child’s attitude and level of engagement will reveal whether his spontaneous activity is developmentally appropriate and productive, as this type of activity results in concentration and a calm and satisfied demeanor following the activity.
… the child must learn by his own individual activity, being given a mental freedom to take what he needs, and not to be questioned in his choice. Our teaching must only answer the mental needs of the child, never dictate them. Just as a small child cannot be still because he is in need of co-ordinating his movements, so the older child, who may seem troublesome in his curiosity over the what, why and wherefore of everything he sees, is building up his mind by this mental activity, and must be given a wide field of culture on which to feed. The task of teaching becomes easy, since we do not need to choose what we shall teach, but should place all before him for the satisfaction of his mental appetite. He must have absolute freedom of choice, and then he requires nothing but repeated experiences which will become increasingly marked by interest and serious attention, during his acquisition of some desired knowledge.
Maria Montessori, To Educate the Human Potential, p.5.
So, from a Montessori perspective, the issue of homework comes down to an issue of the Liberty of the Child, (and faith):
These teachers have studied the method to the letter, but they do not have the necessary faith and therefore have not respected the liberty of the child. … they sought to interfere and to guide and by doing so they have interrupted the natural development and destroyed where they would edify.
Maria Montessori, The Child in the Family, p. 36.
In case it is argued that this applies only to the 3 – 6 group:
… we can no longer distinguish between preschool and school. In fact we do not have a program for instructing a child, but rather it is the child, who, living in the midst of, and developing himself with the help of, physical and intellectual labors, achieves different levels of culture which, generally speaking corresponds to his advance in age.
Maria Montessori, Discovery of the Child, p. 322.
If, as Montessori educators, we are expected to have faith that in a properly prepared environment which offers a wholesome field of study, which opens the child up to an exploration of the universe (in the broadest sense of that word), then surely we cannot presume to control what the child will do outside of the Montessori classroom. As a parent exploring Montessori schools, I would conclude that a Montessori school which was assigning homework would be even more controlling and limiting of a child’s choices in the school. This indicates a fundamental distrust in the ability of the prepared environment to provide the necessary inspiration for the child to take control of his or her own learning.
If a child is not productive much of the time, then the problem has a deeper cause. To be true to the ethos of Montessori, we need to find out what it is in the child’s school or home environment is preventing a child from seeking meaningful work.
Most children today are so overburdened with all the extra classes and activities their parents make them take, we would probably be doing them a service by assigning them some time to simply play. There is growing concern that children today have so little time for free, unstructured, undirected play. I am not referring only to small children in this regard, but older children, even adolescents and teens. There is so much research to show that even adults still need play, we need to chill-out and relax, unwind. Adults are taking courses on how to do this because we have forgotten how, and it looks like our children will have nothing to forget, never having had the opportunity to really learn how to play, how to learn through play.
Many parents are aware of the dangers of too much TV and too much time spent playing computer games, but seem unaware that those dangers are related predominantly to what children are not doing while taking part in those distractions – they are not moving, not playing, not interacting socially, not thinking for themselves. Thus, homework essentially poses the same problems for a child as too much electronic entertainment. What is the child NOT doing when he is doing the assigned work?
Children in Montessori classrooms freely choose their work. They arrive in the morning, look around the classroom, and decide what to do. They work on it for as long as they are inspired to, then they put it away and select something else. This cycle continues all day. … For the most part, children’s choices are limited only by the set of materials they have been shown how to use, by the availability of the material … And by what is constructive for both the self and society. Home time is also relatively free: few Montessori schools assign homework. Practically speaking, this is because the learning materials stay in the classroom. In addition, probably because of differences in structure, Montessori children appear to achieve enough during the school day to obviate the need for homework.
Angeline Stoll Lillard, Montessori: The Science Behind the Genius, p. 80.
A further problem I see with assigned homework is that it compounds an already almost insurmountable problem – that somehow work and learning and play are different things. Flow theory shows us that playful work is the most productive – or was that purposeful play? The phenomenon of deep concentration brought about by self-chosen purposeful work which Dr. Montessori identified in small children (resulting normalization) is in adolescents and adults in the state called “flow”.[2] Just as we protect the right to extended uninterrupted time in the prepared environment, so should we refrain from depriving the child of long periods of uninterrupted time in the afternoons and evenings, to find those activities which are most likely to lead to deep concentration and satisfaction.
When my sons were at regular school, I really resented the way that their homework intruded into our lives – often we could not go on an outing, have a discussion or read a book of our choice because they had homework to do. Weekend activities were curtailed by “projects” and studying for tests. None of the work they were required to complete was as interesting as the things we wanted to do together, or the things they wanted to do alone.
It could be argued that the homework assigned in a Montessori school is more relevant and interesting than the “busywork” assigned in regular schools. My reply is that it is still “assigned” and that is the problem – this is an imposition. Dr. Montessori wrote that “every lesson infringes the liberty of the child, and for this reason we allow it to last only for a few seconds”. (Maria Montessori, The Advanced Montessori Method Vol. 1, p. 35)
If this is the case in the classroom, how can we justify imposing on our children to the extent of telling them what to do at home?
These children have free choice all day long. Life is based on choice, so they learn to make their own decisions. They must decide and choose for themselves all the time… They cannot learn through obedience to the commands of another.
Maria Montessori, The Child Society and the World, p. 26.
REFERENCES:
Bennett, S. & Kalish, N. (2007) The Case Against Homework – How Homework Is Hurting Our Children and What We Can Do About It. Three Rivers Press.
Kohn, A. (2006). The Homework Myth: Why Our Kids Get Too Much of A Bad Thing, Cambridge MA; Da Capo.
Kralovec, E. & Bruell, J. (2000) The End of Homework: Hoe Homework Disrupts Families, Overburdens Children, and Limits Learning. Beacon.
Lillard, A. S. (2007) Montessori: The Science Behind The Genius. Oxford: OUP.
Montessori, M. (1989) To Educate the Human Potential. Oxford: Clio Press.
Montessori, M. (1965) The Advanced Montessori Method Vol. 1. Madras: Kalakshetra.
Montessori, M. (1989) The Child in the Family. Oxford: Clio Press.
Montessori, M. (1988) Discovery of the Child. Oxford: Clio Press.
Montessori, M. (1988) The Child, Society and the World. Oxford: Clio Press.
[1] . Readers interested in the studies underpinning these assertions can begin with any of a number of books dealing exclusively with the subject: Alfie Kohn, The Homework Myth: Why Our Kids Get Too Much of A Bad Thing (Da Capo 2006); Sara Bennett and Nancy Kalish, The Case Against Homework – How Homework Is Hurting Our Children and What We Can Do About It (Three Rivers Press, 2007); Etta Kralovec and John Bruell, The End of Homework: How Homework Disrupts Families, Overburdens Children, and Limits Learning (Beacon 2000). Chick Moorman and Thomas Haller supply Synthesis of Research Findings on Homework on http://www.janebluestein.com/articles/hw_research.html.
[2] . A list of the various books by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi on Flow Theory is found on http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/. See https://www.montessori-namta.org/NAMTA/…/currentresearch.htm for research linking flow theory with Montessori.
by Sharon Caldwell | Child's Work, Montessori Education, Montessori Teachers, Outdoor Education / Resources
The PDF file was prepared by Sharon Caldwell.
Open PDF File
by Sharon Caldwell | Computers in the Classroom, Covid, Free Reads, Infant-Toddler (0 to 3), Later Adolescence (15-18), Lower Elementary (6-9), MFA, Montessori Curriculum, Montessori Middle School, Montessori Secondary / High School, Prepared Environment, The International Montessori Council
Maria Montessori, in an address in 1936 entitled “For Peace,” (2007) discussed how the technologies of her day had brought humankind together and had created a single “great nation” (pp. 24-26):
By becoming a single nation, we have finally realized the unconscious spiritual and religious aspiration of the human soul, and this we can proclaim to every corner of the earth. ‘Humanity as an organism’ has been born; the super-construction that has absorbed all man’s efforts from the beginning of history has now been completed. We are living this reality. We have proof of it in the almost miraculous powers that today are enabling man to rise above his natural condition. Man now flies higher and more confidently through the heavens than the eagle; he has mastered the invisible secrets of the energy of the universe; he can look up into the skies and the infinite; his voice can cross the world’s seas; he can hear the echoes of all the world’s music; he now possesses the secret powers of transforming matter. In a word, contemporary man has citizenship in the great nation of humanity.
While we contemplate how our physical interconnectedness and the technology that made that possible, we have also spread one of the most frightening challenges we have ever known. We also know that only our interconnectedness and our shared technology can help us to survive. We cannot simply submit to technological solutions, however, without heeding the wisdom of history, without also looking to the needs of our humanity. It seems that this global crisis is bringing out both the worst and the best in people. Kindness and true altruism are shining out in the most unexpected places. Compassion abounds, even as the hackers who undermine our trust (along with spreaders of false news) try to dominate our world. Human needs and tendencies, at the core of the Montessori approach to what makes us human, are the defining features of the great nation of humanity. Any true education of the children of humanity depends on a full recognition of what makes us human.
So, while we grapple with the questions of how to deal with the unknown; how to work from home while trying to educate our children; how to keep our schools going when we cannot possibly adhere to fundamental tenets that distinguish Montessori education from conventional schooling; when parents cannot pay their fees because they have lost their jobs; when we don’t know if we will be able to return to our physical environments; and, all the while, trying to keep our own lives together, perhaps we should pause … because we do have time to pause … and ask some important questions: questions we have been able to ignore or gloss over in the past, because we knew that we could trust in our prepared environments. Why change something that works well as it is? All of a sudden, we are faced with a situation that demands that we operate in an environment that we have avoided and even renounced: a digital environment that seems to be the antithesis of our concrete, prepared environment.
The attitude of Montessori schools and Montessori guides towards technology in the classrooms has traditionally been an area of disagreement and mixed messages. While many Montessori environments eschew “technology” (in reality this is taken to mean digital devices and media), others tolerate limited use. A small group of schools have embraced digital technology and incorporated it into their programs. This might include issuing children iPads™ with which to assign and track work or allowing computers in the classroom. The use to which the devices are put can vary from resources that differ little from print material: tightly controlled usage (such as typing tutor software, off-line encyclopedias, etc) to varying degrees of free access to the internet and various applications, such as word processing and presentation software. The message from the Montessori community to the general public has, however, been largely united on limiting the use of digital devices, media, and television viewing.
School closures due to COVID-19 have prompted a drastic revision of this policy, and schools are challenged to not only justify the use of digital technology to continue functioning but also to find ways that do not conflict with basic Montessori principles or undermine the pedagogical approaches that differentiate Montessori education from everything else that is available on the internet.
As with any material or method introduced into the conventional Montessori environment, it is best to begin with asking whether Montessori herself has any guidelines on the matter. Recently, AMI published a short article written by Maria Montessori herself on the issue of what she called “mechanical aids.” The context was somewhat different from ours. It appears that Montessori was introducing an article by another unnamed author, who was advocating the use of film and other aids as support for children in India. Probably written during her stay in India (1940–1947), it was suggested that the use of such supports would both facilitate the preparation of teachers and make “culture” more accessible to more children (Montessori, 2015, pp. 235-238). Further, insight into Montessori’s view of the use of technology can be gleaned from an earlier piece where she considered the use of film within her system, quoting extensively from Carl Renner (Renner, 1932, pp. 235-238).
In the interests of clarity, it is probably best to begin with some etymology:
Technology is as old as the world, at least one inhabited by human beings, certainly when we lean towards the definition of the word when it was originally used; the Oxford Dictionary gives as its etymology from Greek tekhnologia ‘systematic treatment’, from tekhnè, ‘art, craft’ + logia’, dating back to the 17th century.
Montessori certainly understood technology in this light. She was fascinated by technology and the way in which human beings have used technology to meet needs. Some animals use tools, e.g., apes use sticks to dig in termite mounds. But of all the animals, only humans utilize technology. Technology requires the use of the hand and of the brain. The very earliest tools of stone and bone are evidence of technology. It could be claimed that it was the use of technology that saved humankind from extinction 70,000 years ago. Technology is a feature of human culture and an integral component of what Maria Montessori called supranature. Technology and culture place humans above nature. Technology has always been a part of Montessori education to the extent that the Montessori materials are, in and of themselves, technological artifacts.
For the purposes of this article we understand technology in this sense. When referring specifically to computers, iPads, mobile phones and their related media we refer to “digital technology.”
A reading of the two brief articles make it very clear that Montessori did not discount the use of technology in her classrooms. What we cannot say without reservation is that she saw a place for digital technology in the education of young children (or even older children and adolescents), as this was not something she knew about. She supported the use of media that allowed the children to access knowledge beyond that which was presented in the classroom in print, which was presented directly by the adult in the room, and this would necessitate the presence of mechanical aids: machines that the children would be shown how to use and to which they would have free access. It also included means to access experts outside the classroom, such as radio broadcasts.
The opponents of the use of digital technology are able to cite research that point to its pitfalls and dangers. While the benefits have long been recognized by educators looking for ways to reach children beyond the classroom, Montessorians have generally avoided the exploration of the internet as a means to help children access information or, indeed, to give children independence from the guidance of the teacher. Now we find ourselves in a situation where students are at home, physically distanced from both the prepared adult and the prepared environment. In order to support children in a way that is in line with Montessori philosophy and Montessori’s educational aims, we should first examine Montessori’s own views and explore how those are applicable in our current context.
Although Some Observations on Technology was written for a different time and context, the ideas that Montessori expresses could have been typed on a Facebook™ post this morning, only to refer to digital as opposed to mechanical aids: “to promote the acquisition of culture by means of mechanical aids is most opportune at the present moment, when we can almost speak of an emergency.”
This article explores how, in this current emergency, we can remain true to Montessori’s intentions, while maintaining physical distance. It is also concerned with how what we learn now can impact, and even transform, education as distancing requirements are eased.
Montessori reminds us that many children going into elementary classes from Montessori preschools can already read and write and “possess many cultural notions;”
When, therefore, our children enter what is commonly called the elementary school, where compulsory education comes into force, the intelligence requires a much vaster culture than is ordinarily given in those schools.
In the early stages of the development of the program for the second plane of development, Montessori was acutely aware of the needs of the 6–12 year-old child for access to an expanded field of knowledge. Conventionally trained teachers were, in Montessori’s view, ill prepared to meet the needs of the child. Even teachers with subject specializations lack the general breadth of knowledge across disciplines to fully support a child in the second plane:
As with any material or method introduced into the conventional Montessori environment, it is best to begin with asking whether Montessori herself has any guidelines on the matter.
This awareness of the needs of the child and the limitations of the teacher, coupled with her passion for research and a fascination and admiration for technological development, opened to her the possibility of using various means for putting a vast array of content available to the child. The “mechanical aids” to which she refers are those which were commonly available in her day: gramophone records, lantern slides, film and wireless, She includes these in the aids that could be used in the service of the second plane child. Television was only beginning to find its way into the average household, and the personal computer was a long way off. The internet as a replacement for “wireless” (radio) was not even yet in the realm of fiction. Today’s equivalents would be audio recordings and video, which are available on the internet. Much excellent quality material is freely available, as is a plethora of material of dubious quality and provenance. Just as Montessori argued for the use of the technology of her day so, too, we could support the use of digital technologies with certain reservations:
There is no doubt that the schools applying my method, where the cultural development of the children is highly intensified, not on account of any pressure exercised by the teacher, but as a natural consequence of the opportunities given to their individual and social spontaneous activities, will have to avail themselves of these new aids.
Maria Montessori was able to envisage the potential of “material, discourses and visual representations … prepared by fascinating speakers and persons of a culture superior to that of the ordinary teacher.” Montessori foresaw many benefits accruing from this approach: firstly, that fewer teachers would be required and secondly, that materials could prepare for a “higher universal culture.” The preparation of materials would require a team of specialists to prepare and present materials.
If our approach is merely to find experts to prepare online content, or to prepare such resources ourselves, then we are late-comers to a party initiated and perfected by others. Kahn Academy was an earlier pioneer in the field, which offers excellent materials for free on the internet for different levels of learning on a myriad of topics. Many students know and use Kahn Academy already, including students in some Montessori schools. The website offers materials and tutorials for various subjects aimed at children from age four through to AP level. With over a decade of experience (and continuous improvement), this is a valuable resource for learning—particularly those subject areas where “mastery” learning is regarded as particularly valuable. There are many other resources, including YouTube™ channels, which offer sequential lessons of a high standard.
What would differentiate a lesson given by a Montessori trained guide, making it more effective than those offered by online teachers with at least a decade’s head start and accumulated experience in a medium to which we are mostly newcomers? How would we justify creating new materials and justifying their use in place of twelve years of accumulated content? What will make what we have to offer quintessentially Montessori? Do we have to reinvent the wheel to support Montessori students? Maria Montessori gives some direct guidance.
Referring to Renner (1932), Maria Montessori discussed “educational films” of her day, lamenting that they seemed confined to “the world of nature and the world of machines” and looked forward to a time when films dealing with “social and historical problems and the essential problems of culture” would be available. While she envisaged a place for varied visual and audio materials in her scheme of education, she regarded the quality as insufficient to meet the needs of children.
However, I don’t believe there is satisfaction of the real interest created by these films and their success. I believe instead that the little interest they offer to the viewer is due to their fragmented, incoherent character that rather makes them an entertainment show than a truly educational film. Film series coherently connected in a way to create a complete course covering a specific subject, would create a much livelier interest and would have, from an educational standpoint, a more rewarding result.
This deficit in coverage of disciplines has since been remedied, and digital resources offer both expert tuition and visually appealing experiences that cover all the disciplines.
Even well-constructed recent materials may reflect the shortfalls Montessori identified in the films of her day. The brief citation mentioned above, points to two areas that need to be considered. The first issue is that they do not satisfy “the real interest” that they provoke. Put another way—the films can and do create interest, but they do not satisfy the need of the child. They are entertaining rather than educational. This is because they lack the structure, or the inter-relatedness of the curriculum which she envisaged. Some resources, such as The Big History Project are structured in a way that matches the structure of the Montessori elementary curriculum, with many overlapping themes. The way the material is presented conforms to much of what Montessori hoped for in the presentation of the materials. Despite the high quality, logical structure, and interesting content, The Big History Project, and other similar programs, do not constitute Cosmic Education.
A reading of the two brief articles makes it very clear that Montessori did not discount the use of technology in her classrooms.
To properly unpack the thoughtful and planned design of curriculum and methodology that typifies the Montessori approach it is necessary to consider certain philosophical tenets of Montessori—that is the very nature of the educative proposition that is Cosmic Education, and the role of the child as the agent of his or her own education. It requires that we shift our orientation as regards discipline content (which can arguably be more effectively transferred by digital rather than print media) from content for its own sake (i.e., the child as recipient) towards content being the fuel for the child’s self-construction.
To make digital materials useful to children, it is necessary to look at what we know about the development of the child. In Cinema Educativo, Montessori discusses how verbal explanations might be suitable for adults, but that young children require a more concrete experience. She commented that films give “significant advantages.” Because teachers can produce films themselves, these could be geared to the needs of children.
What is needed, in Montessori’s view, is “a guide of a kind of syllabus directing their distribution” (Montessori, 2015, p. 5). The “syllabus” to which she refers had not yet been fully developed, but its guiding principles were already being incorporated in her lectures and eventually became known as the Cosmic Curriculum implemented in Montessori prepared environments for the second plane.
It is clear that Maria Montessori did not oppose the use of film (or in our modern terminology—video) as a means to deliver content to children. She proposed the development of centers for the production of such materials. If the appropriate technology were used, the production of Montessori-compliant media, potentially, has a far greater reach, and could truly transform the way education is understood in the post-COVID world:
These centers would gradually become the means to unify the cultural development of the children all over the world … They would be institutions in the world of the child comparable to the institutes of scientific research in the world of the adult and, as the latter, they would be not only of national, but of universal advantage (Montessori, 2015, p. 6).
There is, however, a critical aspect that requires further deliberation. This relates to how these materials are to be used by the children. I have already alluded to the centrality of the agency of the child as opposed to the centrality of content. Montessori ends her brief introduction:
I would like to point out that these mechanical aids are insufficient to bring about the totality of education. Children to do not learn and do not develop their character by merely listening and looking on.
The technological aids are “only partial aids.” She concludes:
The child learns by means of his own activity and if given an opportunity to learn actively he develops his character and personality too. The child perfects himself even more by means of his hand than by means of the senses. He can develop himself and the personal talents of his nature when given the opportunity and guidance to produce and to discover by himself. Modern methods of education, in fact, are not only visual, but above all active. (Montessori, 2015, p. 7).
A goal of Montessori education is that children are prepared to fully participate in their time and place. There is no doubt, just a few short months into the global crisis that our world is going to change, and that to function in this world one will have to be comfortable with new technology. Adaptability is human trait that has ensured our survival umpteen times in the past and will be key in the coming months and years. Montessori commented on schools that based their learning solely on mechanical devices, and compared these to schools that had a strictly academic focus:
Wherever possible mechanical contrivances are introduced for every detail of practical life, so that our children may be fitted to take part in a civilization which is entirely based on machines.
In their adoption of this part of our method, some modern schools, especially in the United States, have gone too far, so that children in this intellectual stage of growth are made to occupy themselves solely with these machines, devised as they are for developing intelligence. In such schools freedom too has entered with the machines, children being allowed to choose their work, which is good so far as it goes. But whatever cannot be learned in this way is barred out, as insignificant and negligible: mathematics and other abstract subjects are considered as beyond the child’s comprehension by free and spontaneous activity. These schools based on practical work are opposed to the so-called ‘old-fashioned’ schools where mainly abstract subjects are taught and facts memorized; but we oppose both alike (Montessori, 1989, p. 8).
It is clear that Maria Montessori had no aversion to the use of technological aids, that she envisaged the use of visual and audio technology to enrich the child’s experience of knowledge content. She insisted, however, the visual and audio materials must be structured to meet the developmental needs of the children for whom they are intended. Furthermore, adults prepared in the Montessori approach were the best people to plan and prepare such materials. These materials would be part of “the totality of education” that requires that all aspects of Montessori pedagogy are understood and applied.
This article has not touched on many critical components of the Prepared Environment and the role of the adult, including the place of the concrete materials and the potential use of the digital environment to facilitate social interaction while maintaining physical distance, and how to meet the needs of “Going Out” when going out is no longer safe (or indeed even in a post-COVID world, where the rich opportunities available in first-world cities are not accessible to children). We need to remember that our children may know this technology better than we do, but in many cases (such as the impoverished townships of South Africa), children do not have full access to the digital world, just as they do not have access to a truly educative concrete one. How do we deal with this? How do we understand the real child outside of our carefully prepared rooms? There is work that has been done on this. Looking at how children learn when given free access to digital technology (See for example the work of Sugata Mitra – https://www.ted.com/speakers/sugata_mitra) there is immense potential to reach children hitherto denied such access, but Montessori would require that we utilize Montessori methodologies to extend such experiences into a total education. Using digital technology to simply transmit teacher-talk and digitized worksheets and text books is not Montessori education. We are required to observe children and respond to what they reveal to us. How do we observe children in a digital environment?
As Montessori taught us—global human interconnectedness is immense and just possibly we have the provocation necessary to fully explore the potential of our digital technology to fully realize Cosmic Education and transform how the world sees education. If we want to get the right answers we have to start asking the right questions.
Sources:
Montessori, M. (1932). Cinema Educativo. Rivista Bimestrale Dell’Opera, pp. 235-238.
Montessori, M. (1989). To educate the human potential, ABC: CLIO
Montessori, M. (1989). Education and peace, ABC: CLIO
Montessori, M., Pierson (2007). Address European Congress for Peace in Brussels 1936
by Sharon Caldwell | Adolescence, Communication, Computers in the Classroom, Family Resources, MFA, School Resources, The International Montessori Council
Is the Use of Digital Technology Appropriate in the Context of Montessori Philosophy?
Maria Montessori, in an address in 1936 entitled “For Peace,” (2007) discussed how the technologies of her day had brought humankind together and had created a single “great nation” (pp. 24-26):
By becoming a single nation, we have finally realized the unconscious spiritual and religious aspiration of the human soul, and this we can proclaim to every corner of the earth. ‘Humanity as an organism’ has been born; the super-construction that has absorbed all man’s efforts from the beginning of history has now been completed. We are living this reality. We have proof of it in the almost miraculous powers that today are enabling man to rise above his natural condition. Man now flies higher and more confidently through the heavens than the eagle; he has mastered the invisible secrets of the energy of the universe; he can look up into the skies and the infinite; his voice can cross the world’s seas; he can hear the echoes of all the world’s music; he now possesses the secret powers of transforming matter. In a word, contemporary man has citizenship in the great nation of humanity.
While we contemplate how our physical interconnectedness and the technology that made that possible, we have also spread one of the most frightening challenges we have ever known. We also know that only our interconnectedness and our shared technology can help us to survive. We cannot simply submit to technological solutions, however, without heeding the wisdom of history, without also looking to the needs of our humanity. It seems that this global crisis is bringing out both the worst and the best in people. Kindness and true altruism are shining out in the most unexpected places. Compassion abounds, even as the hackers who undermine our trust (along with spreaders of false news) try to dominate our world. Human needs and tendencies, at the core of the Montessori approach to what makes us human, are the defining features of the great nation of humanity. Any true education of the children of humanity depends on a full recognition of what makes us human.
So, while we grapple with the questions of how to deal with the unknown; how to work from home while trying to educate our children; how to keep our schools going when we cannot possibly adhere to fundamental tenets that distinguish Montessori education from conventional schooling; when parents cannot pay their fees because they have lost their jobs; when we don’t know if we will be able to return to our physical environments; and, all the while, trying to keep our own lives together, perhaps we should pause … because we do have time to pause … and ask some important questions: questions we have been able to ignore or gloss over in the past, because we knew that we could trust in our prepared environments. Why change something that works well as it is? All of a sudden, we are faced with a situation that demands that we operate in an environment that we have avoided and even renounced: a digital environment that seems to be the antithesis of our concrete, prepared environment.
The attitude of Montessori schools and Montessori guides towards technology in the classrooms has traditionally been an area of disagreement and mixed messages. While many Montessori environments eschew “technology” (in reality this is taken to mean digital devices and media), others tolerate limited use. A small group of schools have embraced digital technology and incorporated it into their programs. This might include issuing children iPads™ with which to assign and track work or allowing computers in the classroom. The use to which the devices are put can vary from resources that differ little from print material: tightly controlled usage (such as typing tutor software, off-line encyclopedias, etc) to varying degrees of free access to the internet and various applications, such as word processing and presentation software. The message from the Montessori community to the general public has, however, been largely united on limiting the use of digital devices, media, and television viewing.
School closures due to COVID-19 have prompted a drastic revision of this policy, and schools are challenged to not only justify the use of digital technology to continue functioning but also to find ways that do not conflict with basic Montessori principles or undermine the pedagogical approaches that differentiate Montessori education from everything else that is available on the internet.
As with any material or method introduced into the conventional Montessori environment, it is best to begin with asking whether Montessori herself has any guidelines on the matter. Recently, AMI published a short article written by Maria Montessori herself on the issue of what she called “mechanical aids.” The context was somewhat different from ours. It appears that Montessori was introducing an article by another unnamed author, who was advocating the use of film and other aids as support for children in India. Probably written during her stay in India (1940–1947), it was suggested that the use of such supports would both facilitate the preparation of teachers and make “culture” more accessible to more children (Montessori, 2015, pp. 235-238). Further, insight into Montessori’s view of the use of technology can be gleaned from an earlier piece where she considered the use of film within her system, quoting extensively from Carl Renner (Renner, 1932, pp. 235-238).
In the interests of clarity, it is probably best to begin with some etymology:
Technology is as old as the world, at least one inhabited by human beings, certainly when we lean towards the definition of the word when it was originally used; the Oxford Dictionary gives as its etymology from Greek tekhnologia ‘systematic treatment’, from tekhnè, ‘art, craft’ + logia’, dating back to the 17th century.
Montessori certainly understood technology in this light. She was fascinated by technology and the way in which human beings have used technology to meet needs. Some animals use tools, e.g., apes use sticks to dig in termite mounds. But of all the animals, only humans utilize technology. Technology requires the use of the hand and of the brain. The very earliest tools of stone and bone are evidence of technology. It could be claimed that it was the use of technology that saved humankind from extinction 70,000 years ago. Technology is a feature of human culture and an integral component of what Maria Montessori called supranature. Technology and culture place humans above nature. Technology has always been a part of Montessori education to the extent that the Montessori materials are, in and of themselves, technological artifacts.
For the purposes of this article we understand technology in this sense. When referring specifically to computers, iPads, mobile phones and their related media we refer to “digital technology”.
A reading of the two brief articles make it very clear that Montessori did not discount the use of technology in her classrooms. What we cannot say without reservation is that she saw a place for digital technology in the education of young children (or even older children and adolescents), as this was not something she knew about. She supported the use of media that allowed the children to access knowledge beyond that which was presented in the classroom in print, which was presented directly by the adult in the room, and this would necessitate the presence of mechanical aids: machines that the children would be shown how to use and to which they would have free access. It also included means to access experts outside the classroom, such as radio broadcasts.
The opponents of the use of digital technology are able to cite research that point to its pitfalls and dangers. While the benefits have long been recognized by educators looking for ways to reach children beyond the classroom, Montessorians have generally avoided the exploration of the internet as a means to help children access information or, indeed, to give children independence from the guidance of the teacher. Now we find ourselves in a situation where students are at home, physically distanced from both the prepared adult and the prepared environment. In order to support children in a way that is in line with Montessori philosophy and Montessori’s educational aims, we should first examine Montessori’s own views and explore how those are applicable in our current context.
Although Some Observations on Technology was written for a different time and context, the ideas that Montessori expresses could have been typed on a Facebook™ post this morning, only to refer to digital as opposed to mechanical aids: “to promote the acquisition of culture by means of mechanical aids is most opportune at the present moment, when we can almost speak of an emergency.”
This article explores how, in this current emergency, we can remain true to Montessori’s intentions, while maintaining physical distance. It is also concerned with how what we learn now can impact, and even transform, education as distancing requirements are eased.
Montessori reminds us that many children going into elementary classes from Montessori preschools can already read and write and “possess many cultural notions”:
When, therefore, our children enter what is commonly called the elementary school, where compulsory education comes into force, the intelligence requires a much vaster culture than is ordinarily given in those schools.
In the early stages of the development of the program for the second plane of development, Montessori was acutely aware of the needs of the 6–12 year-old child for access to an expanded field of knowledge. Conventionally trained teachers were, in Montessori’s view, ill prepared to meet the needs of the child. Even teachers with subject specializations lack the general breadth of knowledge across disciplines to fully support a child in the second plane:
The teacher, with his unavoidable limitations, then becomes an obstacle to the full development of the real possibilities of the child’s intelligence all along the period of growth, ranging from six to twelve years of age.
This awareness of the needs of the child and the limitations of the teacher, coupled with her passion for research and a fascination and admiration for technological development, opened to her the possibility of using various means for putting a vast array of content available to the child.
This awareness of the needs of the child and the limitations of the teacher, coupled with her passion for research and a fascination and admiration for technological development, opened to her the possibility of using various means for putting a vast array of content available to the child. The “mechanical aids” to which she refers are those which were commonly available in her day: gramophone records, lantern slides, film and wireless, She includes these in the aids that could be used in the service of the second plane child. Television was only beginning to find its way into the average household, and the personal computer was a long way off. The internet as a replacement for “wireless” (radio) was not even yet in the realm of fiction. Today’s equivalents would be audio recordings and video, which are available on the internet. Much excellent quality material is freely available, as is a plethora of material of dubious quality and provenance. Just as Montessori argued for the use of the technology of her day so, too, we could support the use of digital technologies with certain reservations:
There is no doubt that the schools applying my method, where the cultural development of the children is highly intensified, not on account of any pressure exercised by the teacher, but as a natural consequence of the opportunities given to their individual and social spontaneous activities, will have to avail themselves of these new aids.
Maria Montessori was able to envisage the potential of “material, discourses and visual representations … prepared by fascinating speakers and persons of a culture superior to that of the ordinary teacher.” Montessori foresaw many benefits accruing from this approach: firstly, that fewer teachers would be required and secondly, that materials could prepare for a “higher universal culture.” The preparation of materials would require a team of specialists to prepare and present materials.
If our approach is merely to find experts to prepare online content, or to prepare such resources ourselves, then we are late-comers to a party initiated and perfected by others. Kahn Academy was an earlier pioneer in the field, which offers excellent materials for free on the internet for different levels of learning on a myriad of topics. Many students know and use Kahn Academy already, including students in some Montessori schools. The website offers materials and tutorials for various subjects aimed at children from age four through to AP level. With over a decade of experience (and continuous improvement), this is a valuable resource for learning—particularly those subject areas where “mastery” learning is regarded as particularly valuable. There are many other resources, including YouTube™ channels, which offer sequential lessons of a high standard.
What would differentiate a lesson given by a Montessori trained guide, making it more effective than those offered by online teachers with at least a decade’s head start and accumulated experience in a medium to which we are mostly newcomers? How would we justify creating new materials and justifying their use in place of twelve years of accumulated content? What will make what we have to offer quintessentially Montessori? Do we have to reinvent the wheel to support Montessori students? Maria Montessori gives some direct guidance.
What would differentiate a lesson given by a Montessori trained guide, making it more effective than those offered by online teachers with at least a decade’s head start and accumulated experience in a medium to which we are mostly newcomers? How would we justify creating new materials and justifying their use in place of twelve years of accumulated content?
Referring to Renner (1932), Maria Montessori discussed “educational films” of her day, lamenting that they seemed confined to “the world of nature and the world of machines” and looked forward to a time when films dealing with “social and historical problems and the essential problems of culture” would be available. While she envisaged a place for varied visual and audio materials in her scheme of education, she regarded the quality as insufficient to meet the needs of children.
However, I don’t believe there is satisfaction of the real interest created by these films and their success. I believe instead that the little interest they offer to the viewer is due to their fragmented, incoherent character that rather makes them an entertainment show than a truly educational film. Film series coherently connected in a way to create a complete course covering a specific subject, would create a much livelier interest and would have, from an educational standpoint, a more rewarding result.
This deficit in coverage of disciplines has since been remedied, and digital resources offer both expert tuition and visually appealing experiences that cover all the disciplines.
Even well-constructed recent materials may reflect the shortfalls Montessori identified in the films of her day. The brief citation mentioned above, points to two areas that need to be considered. The first issue is that they do not satisfy “the real interest” that they provoke. Put another way—the films can and do create interest, but they do not satisfy the need of the child. They are entertaining rather than educational. This is because they lack the structure, or the inter-relatedness of the curriculum which she envisaged. Some resources, such as The Big History Project are structured in a way that matches the structure of the Montessori elementary curriculum, with many overlapping themes. The way the material is presented conforms to much of what Montessori hoped for in the presentation of the materials. Despite the high quality, logical structure, and interesting content, The Big History Project, and other similar programs, do not constitute Cosmic Education.
To properly unpack the thoughtful and planned design of curriculum and methodology that typifies the Montessori approach it is necessary to consider certain philosophical tenets of Montessori— that is the very nature of the educative proposition that is Cosmic Education, and the role of the child as the agent of his or her own education. It requires that we shift our orientation as regards discipline content (which can arguably be more effectively transferred by digital rather than print media) from content for its own sake (i.e., the child as recipient) towards content being the fuel for the child’s self-construction.
To make digital materials useful to children, it is necessary to look at what we know about the development of the child.
To make digital materials useful to children, it is necessary to look at what we know about the development of the child. In Cinema Educativo, Montessori discusses how verbal explanations might be suitable for adults, but that young children require a more concrete experience. She commented that films give “significant advantages.” Because teachers can produce films themselves, these could be geared to the needs of children.
What is needed, in Montessori’s view, is “a guide of a kind of syllabus directing their distribution” (Montessori, 2015, p. 5). The “syllabus” to which she refers had not yet been fully developed, but its guiding principles were already being incorporated in her lectures and eventually became known as the Cosmic Curriculum implemented in Montessori prepared environments for the second plane.
It is clear that Maria Montessori did not oppose the use of film (or in our modern terminology—video) as a means to deliver content to children. She proposed the development of centers for the production of such materials. If the appropriate technology were used, the production of Montessori-compliant media, potentially, has a far greater reach, and could truly transform the way education is understood in the post-COVID world:
These centers would gradually become the means to unify the cultural development of the children all over the world … They would be institutions in the world of the child comparable to the institutes of scientific research in the world of the adult and, as the latter, they would be not only of national, but of universal advantage (Montessori, 2015, p. 6).
There is, however, a critical aspect that requires further deliberation. This relates to how these materials are to be used by the children. I have already alluded to the centrality of the agency of the child as opposed to the centrality of content. Montessori ends her brief introduction:
I would like to point out that these mechanical aids are insufficient to bring about the totality of education. Children to do not learn and do not develop their character by merely listening and looking on.
The technological aids are “only partial aids.” She concludes:
The child learns by means of his own activity and if given an opportunity to learn actively he develops his character and personality too. The child perfects himself even more by means of his hand than by means of the senses. He can develop himself and the personal talents of his nature when given the opportunity and guidance to produce and to discover by himself. Modern methods of education, in fact, are not only visual, but above all active. (Montessori, 2015, p. 7).
A goal of Montessori education is that children are prepared to fully participate in their time and place. There is no doubt, just a few short months into the global crisis that our world is going to change, and that to function in this world one will have to be comfortable with new technology. Adaptability is human trait that has ensured our survival umpteen times in the past and will be key in the coming months and years. Montessori commented on schools that based their learning solely on mechanical devices, and compared these to schools that had a strictly academic focus:
Wherever possible mechanical contrivances are introduced for every detail of practical life, so that our children may be fitted to take part in a civilization which is entirely based on machines.
In their adoption of this part of our method, some modern schools, especially in the United States, have gone too far, so that children in this intellectual stage of growth are made to occupy themselves solely with these machines, devised as they are for developing intelligence. In such schools freedom too has entered with the
machines, children being allowed to choose their work, which is good so far as it goes. But whatever cannot be learned in this way is barred out, as insignificant and negligible: mathematics and other abstract subjects are considered as beyond the child’s comprehension by free and spontaneous activity. These schools based on practical work are opposed to the so-called ‘old-fashioned’ schools where mainly abstract subjects are taught and facts memorized; but we oppose both alike (Montessori, 1989, p. 8).
It is clear that Maria Montessori had no aversion to the use of technological aids, that she envisaged the use of visual and audio technology to enrich the child’s experience of knowledge content. She insisted, however, the visual and audio materials must be structured to meet the developmental needs of the children for whom they are intended. Furthermore, adults prepared in the Montessori approach were the best people to plan and prepare such materials. These materials would be part of “the totality of education” that requires that all aspects of Montessori pedagogy are understood and applied.
This article has not touched on many critical components of the Prepared Environment and the role of the adult, including the place of the concrete materials and the potential use of the digital environment to facilitate social interaction while maintaining physical distance, and how to meet the needs of “Going Out” when going out is no longer safe (or indeed even in a post-COVID world, where the rich opportunities available in first-world cities are not accessible to children). We need to remember that our children may know this technology better than we do, but in many cases (such as the impoverished townships of South Africa), children do not have full access to the digital world, just as they do not have access to a truly educative concrete one. How do we deal with this? How do we understand the real child outside of our carefully prepared rooms? There is work that has been done on this. Looking at how children learn when given free access to digital technology (See for example the work of Sugata Mitra – https://www.ted.com/speakers/sugata_mitra) there is immense potential to reach children hitherto denied such access, but Montessori would require that we utilize Montessori methodologies to extend such experiences into a total education. Using digital technology to simply transmit teacher-talk and digitized worksheets and text books is not Montessori education. We are required to observe children and respond to what they reveal to us. How do we observe children in a digital environment?
As Montessori taught us—global human interconnectedness is immense and just possibly we have the provocation necessary to fully explore the potential of our digital technology to fully realize Cosmic Education and transform how the world sees education. If we want to get the right answers we have to start asking the right questions.
Sources:
Montessori, M. (1932). Cinema Educativo. Rivista Bimestrale Dell’Opera, pp. 235-238.
Montessori, M. (1989). To educate the human potential, ABC: CLIO
Montessori, M. (1989). Education and peace, ABC: CLIO
Montessori, M., Pierson (2007). Address European Congress for Peace in Brussels 1936
by Sharon Caldwell | Communication, Discipline, Free Reads, Kindergarten, Lower Elementary (6-9), MFA, Mixed Ages, Montessori Family Life, Montessori Teachers, Parent Education, Tomorrow's Child
“The undisciplined child enters into discipline by working in the company of others; not being told he is naughty … Discipline is, therefore, primarily a learning experience and less a punitive experience if appropriately dealt with.” —Maria Montessori
Teachers spend years learning to create an atmosphere in Montessori classrooms that embody the wisdom of Dr. Montessori while fostering the spiritual awakening in their students and themselves. Administrators try, via parent education and engagement, to explain the developmental stages of children so that expectations are realistic for all. Montessori parents are a special group of people who want a very holistic education for their children. However, none of us is immune to needing some reminding of how to talk and treat people we encounter regardless of their place in this world. We are all in this together. By practicing and modeling these skills we can all benefit and change the world.
Many parents and teachers, and some Montessori Directresses make use of ‘time out’ as a means of compelling children to behave in a certain way. Sometimes, the child is required to sit on a specific chair. Sometimes this is called a ‘thinking chair,’ and the child is instructed to think about what he has done. There are many variations on this theme, and the strategy has many names. Ultimately, they all boil down to the same thing.
According to Montessori, a child who is unruly or disruptive should be taken aside by the Directress, away from the disruption of his peers. The adult will stay with the child, quietly re-assuring him, until he is ready to return to his work. This has been interpreted by some as an endorsement of the ‘time-out chair.’
Although removal from the activity of other children can help an over-excited or distraught child to calm down, it is very difficult to use the chair in a non-punitive way. Maria Montessori is quite clear in her writings that punishments have no place in a Montessori environment.
In the early years of its use, the ‘time-out chair’ was seen as a positive step in disciplining young children, as opposed to scolding or complete isolation, or in the absolutely unacceptable (but not absolutely obsolete) practice of spanking children. The technique was regarded as an aid in helping children to learn independence and self-control. Children could take part in group or individual activities as long as they obeyed the house rules. Any infraction would mean removal from activities and peers and, for a specified time, sitting in a designated place some distance away from the center of activities.
The adult then gave the child the opportunity to determine when he felt he could rejoin the group as a cooperative member or asked the child (after whatever time interval seemed appropriate) if he could now cooperate with the rules and be readmitted to the group. The problems associated with a time-out system are essentially those that arise from any method of punishment. Children may well behave in the required way, but they conform in order to avoid being sent to the chair, whether or not they have internalized the rules. It is a simple example of operant conditioning.
Time-out and other punishments are not appropriate in a Montessori environment because they focus on behavior rather than internal development. Punishments reinforce what Maria Montessori called “obedience of the wrong kind.”
Punishments don’t work because they neither help to develop the willpower associated with real choice nor do they help to teach alternative, more acceptable behaviors. Any authoritarian approach discourages creative problem-solving, the development of appropriate conflict-resolution techniques, and the growth of an internal locus of control.
In many ways, isolation from the group can be even more negative than physical punishment, as it engenders feelings of rejection in the child, which can have serious implications for children with already diminished self-esteem. These ideas are supported by Peter Haiman, who argues effectively against the use of time-out in the home. His arguments apply equally to the classroom.
Most importantly, as Ann Clewett points out, “The very existence of the chair causes anxiety in some children.”
The use of star charts and black marks (or any other version of the debit/credit system) has the same result. These systems, just by being evident in the environment, can trigger a stress response in some children, which often results in the very behavior they are designed to deter. Frequent use of these systems only serves to reinforce the child’s negative self-concept by repeatedly humiliating the transgressor in front of his peers.
Clewett’s alternatives to the time-out chair are very similar to those proposed by Dr. Montessori:
“Rather than removing the child from the learning situation when she makes mistakes, we should stop the inappropriate behavior and send her back into the situation to practice the new behavior. Once a child knows that we are helping her find new ways of accomplishing what she wants to, she will begin to think out more acceptable ways herself.”
Until she grasps the concept of alternate ways, she will revert to old habits. Intervention to prevent aggression and suggestions of acceptable alternatives must be made for a number of weeks before children begin to use the alternatives consistently themselves.
The important point in Clewett’s argument is that the adult helps the child “find new ways of accomplishing what she wants to…” Instead of trying to change the child’s behavior, we help the child choose different strategies. By avoiding the use of punishment (and, for that matter, rewards) we shift the emphasis from control to cooperation, from conflict
to collaboration.
A child who might resist control comes to see the adult as an ally, someone to turn to when help is needed. The absence of punishments and rewards is critical to the development of self-discipline.
References
Britton, J. L. . “Montessori Explained,” Child Education (July 1984)
Clewett, Ann. “Guidance and disciple: Teaching Young Children Appropriate Behavior,” Young Children (May 1988)
Haiman, Peter. “The Case Against Time Out,” www.naturalchild.org/guest/peter_haiman.html
Sharon Caldwell is a Montessori consultant in South Africa. She is also a member of the staff of the Montessori Foundation.
Tomorrow’s Child/ Jan 19 / pg 10
by Sharon Caldwell | Later Adolescence (15-18), Lower Elementary (6-9), Montessori Education, Montessori Middle School, Montessori Secondary / High School, Montessori students, Montessori Teachers, Peace Education, Primary (3-6), The International Montessori Council, Upper Elementary (9-12), Webcasts / IMC, Young Adolescent
On November 8, 2017 Sharon Caldwell, Senior Montessori Consultant in South Africa explored the important topic of giving children a greater voice and sense of shared decision-making and ownership at both the classroom and school-wide level in Montessori.
We remember that Montessori speaks often about the children’s sense of pride in the care of their environment and treatment of one another within the community. These are children’s houses, not teacher’s classrooms.
Sharon has a background in both Montessori and democratic education and will look at practical steps to create a large scope of children’s engagement in the school.This can lead to long-term loyalty, price, and continuing enrolment.
Remember, we store videos of all of our webcasts and much more in The International Montessori Council member’s resource center. If you or your school are not members yet, you should look into it. https://stage.montessori.org/the-international-montessori-council-imc/
The IMC offers great benefits, especially to schools, and is very affordable because of its connection to the Montessori Foundation. It only takes a moment to join online.
If you’d like to know more about having any of us from the Montessori Foundation come to your school or present a live online class by video broadcast to your entire staff, contact timseldin@montessori.org
by Sharon Caldwell | Archived Issues / Montessori Leadership, The International Montessori Council
At The Montessori Foundation, we regularly receive queries regarding policies for relationships between staff and parents. Many school heads express concerns over issues ranging from staff being “friends” with parents on Facebook, to babysitting for school families, to … in some cases, actual romantic involvements.
The issues span those which are merely internal or personal preferences,to those matters which are dictated by legislation and regulations. What is unethical and what is simply bad form?
As a starting point, we would say that every school should have a set of clearly worded policies, which spell out the “non-negotiables.” These are shared with any prospective teacher before hiring, and any person not prepared to comply would probably not be a good match for your school.
In many businesses there are clear understandings about what types of interactions employees can have with clients. While it may not be relevant if the burger flipper in a fast-food outlet dates a regular customer, a Montessori school teacher would be regarded as being somewhat unethical if she dated the father of a child in her class.
On the other hand, no business can really dictate what staff members do in their free time. Or can they? While businesses cannot restrict who staff members interact with, they most certainly can set boundaries on what types of services can be rendered, or what can be discussed over coffee. An accountant working for a firm of Chartered Accountants cannot agree to, in his spare time, do the books of a subsidiary of a major client. He cannot discuss the financial statements of one client with a life-long friend who just happens to work for another accounting firm. That would be considered unethical and may even be considered grounds for termination of services.
While it is understandable that parents would approach a teacher they know and trust to babysit for them, and while in many instances there may be no problem, there are many pitfalls to this type of arrangement. When the child is at school, it is very clear what each role is. The parent is the customer, the teacher the employee, employed by the head of school. The school is the provider of the service. The teacher is answerable to the head of school, is bound by the school’s code of conduct and by legislation. The child knows and understands the relationship, too, and the rules of the classroom are clear to all concerned. When the teacher babysits, she is answerable to the parent. “House rules” apply — not school rules.
In respect to confidentiality, it takes a very firm will and clear vision of boundaries for a parent not to be tempted to “talk shop” – asking about how the child behaves at school, how the child is progressing, and so on. Similarly, it is difficult for a teacher, especially a younger, inexperienced teacher, not to be drawn into comparisons and inappropriate discussions with the parent about the school.
Generally people who run Montessori schools are kind and caring people, who tend to avoid very businesslike arrangements. This can lead to trouble when either staff or parents overstep the invisible line, and one party or the other feels betrayed or used. This can lead to a rapid degeneration of the relationship between the school and the family, with the teacher in the middle (and the child as the victim in most cases).
One way to avoid potential problems is to have clear policies in place, as discussed above. These policies are communicated clearly to parents and staff, and are printed in the staff and parent handbooks. Instead of blanket embargoes on babysitting, for example, it may be realistic to have a requirement that such arrangements are disclosed. Furthermore, very specific guidelines are given to parents and staff regarding issues of confidentiality. While parents may be keen to find out just a little more about what is going on at school, they may not be comfortable about personal family details being discussed in the staff room. Hence, staff members must understand that they will need to compartmentalize the two separate roles and treat information gained in each venue as discreet and separate. They will then undertake not to discuss the child’s home life in staff meetings, any more than they would discuss confidential school issues with the parent. All well and good. But what if the home situation is impacting on the child’s life at school? If the teacher knows something that is relevant, is she not required (possibility even by law) to disclose that information? Because laws vary from state to state, country to country, schools should take the time to get appropriate legal advice on these issues.
Another problem that arises is that teachers may form a closer, or at least different, relationship with the children they interact with outside of school. Other children in the class will sense this difference no matter how hard the teacher may work at avoiding favoritism.
There may also be financial and legal implications for the teacher and the school. If, for example, a teacher agrees to give a child a ride home, the school may be liable should there be an accident, as the teacher is an employee of the school. What happens if there is a disagreement or falling out between the teacher and the family, but then the teacher still needs to have this child in her class at school? There are many more implications to this type of relationship than might be obvious upfront.
We don’t recommend regulating all staff connections to parents. Rather, we suggest you focus on hiring the right teachers and helping your staff to keep talking about what appropriate ethical behavior means for your school, putting in writing which lines simply cannot be crossed. Exactly what those lines are will differ from one school to another, but it is important to clearly define where they are for your school.
Ensure that the lines are not crossed, and when they are, deal with the issues promptly and fairly. Where harsher measures are called for, take whatever action is necessary and which is permissible by law. Inappropriate, unprofessional parent-staff relationships can be devastating to a school.
Montessori Leadership / December 2012 / p 18
by Sharon Caldwell | Archived Issues / Montessori Leadership, Montessori Administrators, The International Montessori Council
“Here is the essential principle of education: to teach details is to bring confusion; to establish the relationship between things is to bring knowledge.”— Maria Montessori, Childhood to Adolescence
The Montessori curriculum is carefully structured and sequenced, and teachers maintain careful records of each child’s progress. Because Montessori Schools do not compare students against arbitrary standards, or against the performance of their classmates, we do not use familiar letter grades. There are many reasons for this. Generally letter grades are a poor reflection of a child’s learning. Their popularity is based on a vision of education that requires quantifiable data that supports comparisons and ranking. Montessori classes are multi-aged, and are designed to accommodate widely divergent learning and self-chosen work. The implication is that conventional assessment and reporting techniques are simply not very well suited and cannot be expected to accurately represent the range and depth of learning that takes place in a well prepared Montessori environment.
Narrative reports are better suited to the Montessori context. A narrative report is just what the name says – a written narrative that describes each child’s activities for the period under review.
The Montessori Foundation recommends that schools compile detailed narrative reports twice a year to report on the child’s development and to discuss how the Montessori program is contributing to their growth. Narrative reports are personalized and helped to give parents a level of insight into their child’s learning in a way that letter grades, or indeed any quantitative method, simply cannot do. Narrative reports not only allow for a description and assessment of what the child has been working on, but also provide an opportunity for the teacher to link the child’s new learning to past preparation and forecast what the child might be working on in the future.Converting from letter-grade to narrative reports
Sometimes, schools worry that parents will resist a change from the familiar letter grade reports to the more descriptive narrative style. Provided they are well done, parents seldom complain about narrative reports, and if they do it may indicate that they are not fully supportive of the Montessori approach. You may want to include a brief explanation of why your school has shifted to this style the first time you send out a narrative report. Here are some parent responses one school received when shifting from a conventional to a narrative format:
“THANK YOU Gail for the truly magnificent progress report! I enjoyed every second and every word that you wrote about Kelly. Everyone knows that my daughter is a sprite of few words so to read all about what she is up to at school was refreshing and fun to hear. This new style of reporting seems more thoughtful and informative and I really hope this type of narrative reporting is here to stay. A very big thank you AGAIN to you ALL for the quality time and special interest shown in [name removed] development emotionally and practically. Now I just can’t wait for the next edition.”
“When Sally gave me the report yesterday never was I expecting such an informative and exciting review of the progress of our [name removed]. It is so special to know that his teachers are right on the button in assessing his abilities, weaknesses and personality traits. I am so lucky to be a part of his life and thank everyone at Mountain Montessori for helping me build and mould this amazing little boy for his future role in society. A HUGE THANK YOU!!!”
“A very HUGE THANK YOU to all at Mountain Montessori. Love the new report style. So many questions were already answered about Jimmy which was on my list for the next meeting. You guys are on the ball! Well done & thank you once again.”
Record and Assess with Reporting in Mind
“Our nets define what we shall catch.” (Eisner, 7)
Curriculum theorist Elliot Eisner compared the assessment processes chosen to fishing nets. The size of the gap in the netting determines which fish are held in the net and which swim through. In this way, what is assessed (and thus reported on) ultimately determines what happens in the classroom. It is this important to remember that reporting is the culmination of a sequence of events and decisions that start with the school’ vision, mission and aims. The aims are then extrapolated in the curriculum. Assessment should be carried out in respect of the curriculum. Reporting is, in essence the final step in the process of documenting. It is an individualized, summarized report on the extent to which the curriculum has been successful, for each particular child, in bringing about the school’s stated aims. It is thus essential that there is a high level of consistency between all the various elements: aims, curriculum, assessment and reporting.
Throughout the year, you will be observing children working. Keep good narrative records of observations to supplement any checklists you may be using. It is also a good idea to take photographs in the classroom to remind you of details you may not have included in your notes, and to illustrate points in the report. Choose one or two especially representative photos for each child, and include these in your report.
When making narrative observations, highlight items that you may want to include in the report: major milestones achieved, work that has resulted in deep concentration or about which a child is particularly enthusiastically. Also, note challenges you observe and areas where the child still needs lots of practice.
Narrative records pose additional challenges at the elementary and secondary levels, but with the proper planning can they can become an integral part of the ongoing planning – assessing – reporting cycle. Especially as the Montessori curriculum is integrated, rather than divided into separate disciplines, the report can be structured around skills and dispositions rather than academic areas if you choose to do so.
Purpose and Use of Narrative Reports
Good narrative reports do more than simply give feedback to parents – they also re-enforce the school’s vision and ethos. Because you are reporting on what you intended for the children to learn, and not on some arbitrary external list of standards or outcomes, the report reflects what matters in your school.
It is important to remember that narrative reports are formal, official school documents that become part of each student’s permanent academic record. Although narrative reports are originally prepared as a report from the child’s present teachers to his or her parents, they will be read in later years by subsequent teachers, both in your school and in any school(s) to which the child transfers in the future. Therefore, it is essential that you avoid any references that would not be clearly understood by a reader not familiar with your class and school. If you know a child is transferring to another school in the following year you can structure your narrative report and use terminology that explains the child’s development in terminology that will be understandable to the new school, without compromising the fidelity of the Montessori report.
This is one of the ways in which Montessori schools can distinguish themselves from other schools. Narrative reports embody our commitment to each child as unique individual. They communicate that we are not simply teaching and then testing to see if the teaching has “stuck”, but rather that the adults are creating real relationships with children and taking the effort understand not only what learning and development is happening, but also how it is happening. When the anticipated learning is not happening, we are interested in why it isn’t and how we might help the child to move to the next level. If done well the narrative report serves to remind parents just why they chose Montessori in the first place.
Indirect Preparation
One of the reasons why letter grade or, to a slightly lesser degree, checklists are inappropriate in a Montessori context is that they do not account for that quintessential component of Montessori learning – indirect preparation. Coupled with this is the “explosive” nature of learning in the Montessori classroom. Unlike conventional schooling where steady incremental growth is the norm, Montessori schools expect children (especially those under age 60 to show little external evidence of learning for extended periods. These periods of apparent stagnation are followed by explosions of learning where the child surges ahead in a particular area. Indirect preparation is the reason why Montessori schools prefer not to report too regularly – the evidence of learning simply isn’t always there. But the understanding of indirect preparation can be conveyed to parents in a narrative. For example: “Amy has been working with the sand paper letters with great focus for the past few weeks. While she is not yet vocalizing a knowledge of the sounds associated with the letters she has been feeling, her increasing concentration and interest in this work indicates that we can expect to see an interest in writing and word building in the future.” A sentence of this nature not only tells the parents what the child is doing, but also how it links to future learning. These observations do not contain judgment – the child’s work is neither good nor bad. It is appropriate for that child, now.
Some work seems to have very little direct or measurable outcome, for example a child who is repeatedly feeling the geometric solids. You could help a parent understand this by explaining “Kyle spends a lot of time feeling the geometric solids. Although he is not currently interested in learning the names, he is paying a lot of attention to the differences between the different shapes and enjoys exploring the differences between them. This activity is providing him with a solid foundation for future studies in geometry, which may only reveal itself at the elementary level.”
This type of reporting is an application of the “principle of the hook” – the Montessori understanding of all learning being linked to something already there and something being prepared for in the future.
At the elementary or secondary level children may choose to work almost exclusively in one are of development. By looking at his or her learning holistically it is possible to report on learning across academic areas. For example, a child who is passionately exploring the animal kingdom will be developing and applying reading, comprehension and writing skills without necessarily working with materials in the language arts area.
Subsequent reports will refer back to earlier comments and create a link in the sequence of learning. This helps parents to appreciate their children’s learning as a continuum, rather than a series of isolated achievements.
Preparing Narrative Reports
A narrative report is a formal written text describing in some detail a child’s academic, emotional, social and physical development.
The first time you compile a set of narrative reports, it seems like a lot more work than compiling conventional letter grade reports. With practice, and good advance preparation, narrative reporting is both easy and rewarding.
Plan to write your reports well in advance. You can even write whole paragraphs in your ongoing notes that can be harvested when you begin to write reports. If there are areas where you perceive “gaps” in your ability to report, plan presentations and conduct informal assessments well ahead of time. Reports follow from authentic assessment, and authentic assessment is always performed primarily to inform teaching, and not simply for the purpose of assessment.
There is nothing that undermines a parent’s confidence more than reading a report that says a child cannot do something that the parent knows full well the child mastered months ago.
Tools for Report Writing
The writing process is made much easier if you do some advance planning. We recommend you compile two sets of lists that will assist you in writing your narrative report. These lists must be informed by your school’s vision and mission, and by your curriculum. Your school has a vision – an idea of what you want to achieve through your educational practice. If your mission is to develop the whole child your reporting must reflect that. If your school is, on the other hand, overtly academic, then that should be the major focus of your reports. If your schools mission and vision includes references to compassion, acceptance and inclusion, then the reports should indicate the extent to which those characteristics are being developed.
It is preferable that the lists are drawn up early in the year, so that you can make your ongoing notes and observations with these in mind.
Decide Which General Areas You Want to Cover in the Report
The first is a list of the general areas of knowledge and skills the child is likely to achieve in your class. It is important to have a faculty meeting where you discuss the types of things you want to include in the basic layout. Montessori education is about a lot more than simply completing work and learning content. If your school is more interested in how the child is learning than what he is learning your narrative style can convey that, while at the same time reassuring parents that real learning is taking place. On the other hand, a school with a strong academic focus can highlight cognitive and intellectual achievements in the reports.
Conventional checklists and reports are a starting point for these categories. They help you to get thinking, and to ensure that you narrative gives good coverage of all areas of development. Even if your school has a strong focus on one or the other area, it is important to give some attention to all domains. Thus your headings should cover cognitive, emotional, social and physical development at all levels. While many schools choose to use the major disciplines or curriculum areas as their main headings, you could choose to avoid reporting by academic area entirely. For example at the preschool level you could use the features of Normalization or the Human Tendencies as headings, and use subject matter descriptions to illustrate the child’s development in an integrated way. Either option works well, provided the whole school is following roughly the same format. Try to keep the format fairly consistent from year to year, as parents get confused by constantly changing report formats.
Compile a List of Descriptive Statements
Your second list will be sample descriptions of work done, activities achieved, attitudes expressed and so on. Just as in the case of the headings, you should word these statements so that they reflect the character and values of the school as a whole.
Especially for children in the second and third planes of development, you need to report on more than simply narrating what material the child has worked with, and what concepts have been learned. Higher levels of engagement with curriculum content should be reported. In this regard it is helpful to refer to Bloom’s Taxonomy of learning outcomes to ensure that the students are reaching higher levels of cognitive development. Resources for Bloom’s Taxonomy have lists of skills in the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains, with descriptions that can help you find the wording you will need, and which can be adapted to your own needs. See for example http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html
As helping the child become an autonomous human being able to function independently in the world is a primary goal in Montessori, consideration of the extent to which each child meets his or her own human needs is a productive exercise. Consider the various steps to self-actualization mentioned in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs – physiological, safety, love/belonging, esteem and self-actualization. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs) An alternative, possibly more holistic, approach to needs is offered by Manfred Max-Neef. (A basic matrix can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_human_needs). Understanding the ways in which the children on each level in the Montessori school develop the skills and dispositions to meet these needs broadens the range of meaningful aspects on which you can report, and aligns especially well with the focus on Fundamental Needs that is central to the Montessori elementary curriculum.
Whatever you include, the purpose of this list is not that you simply choose statements at random, but to provide some help in overcoming writers block. Sometimes simply scanning down the list helps to trigger ideas about a particular child that can then be linked to specific examples. Having a good thesaurus handy helps as well. Parents do compare reports, and will not welcome almost identical reports for different children.
The second purpose of the list is that it helps all faculty members to privilege language which aligns with the schools’ character and aims, and creates a consistent style throughout the school.
Involving Students in Report Writing
Some schools find it beneficial to involve students in the report writing process. At Nahoon Montessori School we discussed what we would be saying in the report with the child concerned, and invited their input. This often gave much deeper insight into learning and children would add items that they wanted to be in the record. We would ask such questions as “what do you feel was your most important learning this term?” or “what areas do you feel you would like to put more effort into next year?” The resulting input was often thoughtful. Children’s responses to our questions about where they felt they could have done better, or where they might be a little disappointed with their own progress were often way more critical than any teacher might have verbalized. Children also raised issues that were important to them, but which teachers may not have notices. One child, for example, asked that the following be included as her most important learning achievement for the term: “I don’t lose my temper so much anymore. I am starting to understand why other children avoid me, and am working on that.” Children are thus able to set their own goals and assess their own progress in a very personal and meaningful way.
The Writing Process
When compiling narrative reports for the first time, start with a writing rehearsal in which the whole faculty particpates. Teachers work together and practice writing a few paragraphs with the suggested reference points and the lists as a resource. Read one another’s reports and give feedback. Read the reports from a parent perspective. In this first stage don’t worry too much about correcting spelling and grammar but focus on expressing what you know about an individual child’s learning. You will find the reports become easier as you go along.
After the writing rehearsal you sit down to write the actual reports. Refer to all the data you have collected. If you have annotated your daily observations with reporting in mind, and pre-selected photographs, then the job is much easier.
School formats
Firstly, design a layout that will work for the whole school. This should include:
The School’s full details: Name, full address and telephone number.
Title of report: e.g. Narrative Report of Progress
Child’s name, present class or age level, the teachers name, and the date of the report.
A general outline for the opening paragraphs – i.e. what is to be included in the introduction for all children.
A sequence of topics or general areas you have decided upon according to the process described elsewhere in this article.
A rough outline for the concluding paragraphs.
Some Words of Warning
Be careful that you don’t put something down in writing that will come back to haunt you. We’ve all heard of parents who are very upset to find that their child is less advanced than they were led to believe from the reports at their last school, or who spend their vacation worrying about statements by the teacher to the effect that the child might have some serious disorder. Avoid making statements that cannot be objectively substantiated or which may be misleading or easily misunderstood. For example, avoid making statements such as: “She has demonstrated to us that she is bright and developmentally above her peers” or “He is developmentally far behind his age group.” Ensure that you are absolutely certain (through formal testing) before making a statement like “she is a gifted student.”
It is best to avoid any judgments or labeling as far as possible. Certainly never draw attention to any learning barrier or challenging behavior in a report before bringing these to the parent’s attention in a face-to-face meeting.
Sometimes parents are offended by the most innocent statements. While one family may be happy to have their child described as “sensitive” another may take it as an insult. Focusing on observable actions or specific instances is better. “Jane often seems upset when other children do not pay attention to what she is saying” is more useful than saying “Jane is a sensitive child.”
School Ethos
Narrative reports often say more about your school than they say about the child. For example, if you teach in a two-teacher classroom, statements such as “In my class, I feel, …” suggest that your co-teacher is not part of the team. Pay attention to choosing words and expressions that represent the character that the school wishes to project.
Avoid referring to the winter holidays as the “Christmas Break.” It can offend people who are not Christian.
Where possible avoid educational jargon. While some parents may understand, and possibly appreciate technical terms such as “developmentally appropriate”, “normalized”, and “sensitive periods,” most relate better to comments that are stated simply and clearly. If you do use technical terms, be sure to explain them clearly or use examples that will help parents understand what you mean.
Technicalities
Just like in college, select a style manual and follow it consistently. If your school is large, then compile a school style sheet for all teachers to use. Be consistent in capitalizing the areas of the curriculum. Normally, school subject names are not capitalized.
It is critical to have a time-line in place for editing, printing and signing procedures. It cannot be overemphasized that this process should start early.
Narrative reports are a formal record of a child’s progress through school. It is thus essential that each one is carefully written and reviewed by your colleagues and administrator. Go over each other’s narrative reports, preferably in a face-to-face work session, and tactfully and gently suggest improvements in each other’s work. Watch out for typographical errors, mistakes in punctuation, and double-spacing between words.
Parents tend to judge a school quite harshly if reports come home with misspelled words. Spell-check everything, but remember that computer software can be stupid. It takes a human proofreader to catch many mistakes. Every writer needs an editor and proofreader. It is often difficult to pick up errors in your own work. Have the 3 – 6 teachers read the reports of the elementary classes and vice versa. Have a non-Montessorian read the reports to ensure that they will be intelligible to parents. Obviously this person must be a staff member who has the necessary clearance to read confidential documents.
All reports are then read and signed by the school principal and the class teacher.
It does take time, but the results will make the investment worthwhile. Remember that this is not just a report, it enriches your assessments, informs future action and ultimately increases student retention.
References:
- Eisner. E. W. (1985) The Art if Educational Evaluation: A Personal View. London and Philadelphia, PA: Falmer.
Max-Neef, M. (1991) Human Scale Development. Conception, Application and Further Reflections. New York and London: Apex Press.
- This article forms part of the Montessori Leadership Institute’s course on Authentic Montessori Recording, Reporting and
Assessment, part of the series on Montessori Curriculum Planning and Implementation to be launched early in 2013.
Montessori Leadership / December 2012 / p 8
by Sharon Caldwell | Montessori Administrators, Montessori Curriculum, Montessori Education, School Leadership, The International Montessori Council

There is widespread confusion about the meaning of the word “curriculum.”
One’s approach to curriculum reflects one’s perceptions, values, and knowledge. A curriculum approach reflects a holistic position or a meta-orientation, encompassing curriculum’s foundations (a person’s philosophy, view of history, view of psychology and learning theory, and view of social issues), curriculum domains (common, important knowledge within the field), and curricular theory and practice. An approach expresses a viewpoint about curriculum’s development and design; the role of the learner, teacher, and curriculum specialist in planning curriculum; the curriculum’s goals; and the important issues that need to be examined.
A curriculum approach reflects our views of schools and society. By understanding one’s curriculum approach, and that of one’s school or school district, it is possible to conclude whether one’s professional view conflicts with the formal organizational view. (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009, p. 2)
In the education community at large (that is outside of Montessori), there is widespread agreement among theorists that there is a direct link between individual perceptions, values, and knowledge of each person and the way in which they interpret and implement any curriculum. Studies have highlighted that the behaviors of teachers often contradict their expressed beliefs. Incompatible values and aims are seen as the source for conflicts in education, especially as there is a “failure to recognize conflicting conceptions of curriculum” and to examine “conceptual underpinnings.”(Eisner & Vallance, 1974, pp. 1–2)
While it would seem that an approach such as Montessori would be sufficiently clearly defined to preclude the differing ideological frameworks found in conventional schooling, this is not the case. Differences in the implementation of various aspects of Montessori have been highlighted in a number of studies. For example, Carolyn Daoust (2004) identified different “clusters of practice.” Daungvan Bunnag (2000) identified significant differences in practice even within a single school. Angeline Lillard (2011, 2012) has focused on different opinions amongst Montessori teachers regarding the materials that should be present in the classroom and has highlighted the distinction between what she calls “classic” and “supplemented” implementation practices.
The varying interpretations are evident from the first attempts to apply Dr. Montessori’s work after the success of the San Lorenzo experiments. To use Rita Kramer’s words: “Montessori’s followers had a way of finding in her philosophy whatever it was they were looking for.” (Kramer, 1988, p. 352) Popular arguments have been put forward aligning Montessori with philosophies as disparate at those of Ayn Rand and Paulo Freire. Attempts have been made to integrate Montessori with approaches including the International Baccalaureate, constructivism in its Piagetian and Vygotskian incarnations, including the Reggio Emilia approach and Waldorf. Montessori education briefly held attraction for Mussolini’s Fascists on one hand and the anarchist followers of the Modern School movement on the other. Clearly, it is easy to misconstrue Maria Montessori’s meaning.
Sometimes, this variety is actively celebrated. Referring to Montessori implementation in the Netherlands, one writer describes the diversity of Montessori as “wonderful for the teacher” as it “gives a lot opportunity for the children.” He continues:
“A teacher who has a great interest in Cosmic Education has children working with water and stones or with the faces of the moon. A teacher who has a strong emphasis on fantasy play will have a classroom with children playing in corners, where they practice their free play. When these teachers come together and talk about the Montessori vision, we can see that the second teacher changes her prepared environment and, for example, adds words in the corner, so that the children are stimulated to read. So, within the range of similarity of the Montessori school, we still see that every school is different.(Hendriksen, 2010, p. 21)
Others identify the differences as a major impediment to research into the efficacy of Montessori education. Angeline Lillard’s most recent study focused on the varying results obtained from schools that offer “classic” and “adapted” versions of Montessori. She refers to “variations in Montessori implementation fidelity,” which may impact outcomes. (Lillard, 2012) While the variations may be attributable to different training programs through which teachers are certified, it may be that this trend in Montessori implementation is a result of a more widespread tendency, identified in conventional education and in the application of other alternative approaches. Discussing the distortions found in the implementation of Open Education, Barth (1975, pp. 58–59) suggests that: “… educators who are quick to assimilate new ideas into their cognitive and operations framework, often distort the ideas of practices from the original conception without recognizing either the distortion or the assumptions violated by the distortion. This seems to happen partly because the educator has taken on the verbal abstraction of a new idea without going through a concomitant personal reorientation of attitude and behavior. Vocabulary and rhetoric are easily changed, while practices, people, and institutions often remain little affected.
Teacher beliefs “endure, unaltered, unless deliberately challenged.” (Jensen, 2004, p. 48) These beliefs are often formed early in childhood and are reinforced by prevalent societal beliefs in what Jerome Bruner (1996) called “folk pedagogy.” The great variation in the way in which Montessori principles are interpreted and applied suggests that conflicting belief systems could be in play in Montessori, just as they hamper reform of conventional education. These differences could originate from the different curriculum ideologies that individual teachers bring to their practice of Montessori.
Generally, educators tend not to be consciously and strongly aligned to any particular approach, selecting different approaches to suit situations. (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009, p. 2) This view is supported by Michael Schiro (2008, p. 2), who points out that “the existence of (the differing ideologies) causes difficulty for newcomers to the field, who are usually unaware of them and as a result often have difficulty determining how to philosophically orient themselves, as subscribers to different ideologies pressure them for their allegiance.” While Montessori teachers actively choose to be certified in the Montessori approach and, by implication, identify with at least some of the basic tenets of Montessori, it is unlikely that they are immune to the ideological positions that would have been formed during their own schooling. It is also reasonable to expect that they would be subjected to the same types of ideological pressures that Schiro identifies for conventional educators.
Teachers may also adopt conflicting ideologies when working with students of different ages. For example, teachers who adopt a developmental approach when working at preschool level may shift to a more rigid, academic approach when engaging with older students. Teachers are likely to shift their ideological orientations over time, especially when changing their roles, for example from teacher to school head (Schiro, 2008, pp. 197–211). Again, it is reasonable to suppose that Montessori teachers are similarly influenced.
On one hand, this might suggest a richness and depth in terms of curriculum application, but, in reality, it poses a complex challenge to schools trying to achieve consistency across classes and which are being called to ever-greater levels of accountability by the public at large.
I do not presume to argue which of the varied ideologies of curriculum may be most appropriate, nor to prescribe to schools which ideology to adopt but, rather, hope to create an awareness of the major trends and provide some guidance for schools and individual teachers to assist in identifying which aspects of their interpretation may be impacting on their implementation of the “Montessori curriculum” in an individual school.
“Controversy in educational discourse most often reflects a basic conflict in priorities concerning form and content of curriculum and the goals toward which schools should strive; the intensity of the conflict and the apparent difficulty in resolving it can most often be traced to a failure to recognize conflicting conceptions of curriculum.” (Eisner & Vallance, 1974, pp. 1–2)
The goal is, thus, to achieve some measure of clarity in what is essentially a very muddy pond.
The concept of curriculum
The concept of curriculum has developed significantly over time. The word “curriculum” is drawn from the Latin word originally meaning “a running,” “a race,” “a course,” “race-course,” or a “career.” During the Roman period, it was also used, somewhat obliquely, to refer to content of a literary work (curricula mentis). Teachers in the middle ages were concerned largely with what was to be transmitted and, to a lesser extent, the order in which that was to happen, with very little, if any, formal attention being given to the method of instruction. By the 17th century, the word “curriculum” was being used to apply specifically to the length of a course. By this time, there was already debate over what content was important, but the word “curriculum” was used to signify the container, the period of study, rather than the contents of a course.
The understanding of the word evolved, influenced to some extent by Itard and Seguin (the educators whose work had a formative influence on the educational thinking of Maria Montessori) to incorporate ideas regarding methodology as well as content. (Egan, 1978) Maria Montessori used the words “curriculum” and “syllabus” virtually interchangeably in some of her books. (More accurately, the Italian words she used were translated this way.) In recent years, curriculum theorists have defined “curriculum” to extend to cover much more than the simple content.
Curriculum studies have yielded insights into how people conceive of curriculum and how these understandings impact on classroom practice. It may be that many schools and training institutions, because they do not fully explore this topic, fit Montessori into their own pre-existing curriculum ideologies. Individual teachers may not fully understand, or may understand and deliberately reject, the paradigm adopted by the school. Through not embracing the ideology of the school, teachers may deliberately or inadvertently subvert the school’s goals through the application of methodologies more coherent with their own dominant ideologies.
Although she does not often use the word explicitly, Dr. Montessori had some very definite ideas about curriculum. It certainly was not about lesson plans – not even that set of lessons we now call “Cosmic Curriculum.” Unfortunately, her view is not comprehensively or concisely represented in her published works, and her intentions can only be gleaned from careful analysis of the totality of her work.
Most Montessorians have a sense of what she intended. Almost all Montessori schools have acknowledged the promotion of peace as being central to their curricula, support the ideas of freedom and autonomy to some extent, and promote community and respect as fundamental principles. Schools refer to “Cosmic Education” in respect of the 6 – 12 age groups. By the same token, many schools tend to default to an understanding of curriculum that seems at odds with transformative goals when it comes to areas related to academic learning, adopting the language of either highly academic or standards-based outcomes oriented ideologies.
Impact of the Standards Movement
The growth in influence of the standards movement around the world, which has been accompanied by stronger centralized control of curriculum and high-stakes testing, has resulted in a shift in the language of curriculum texts, as well as in the popular understanding of learning. This has, amongst other things, resulted in the notion that curriculum is something that is “delivered.” Bailey (Bailey, 2010, p. 28) points out that “without philosophical critique, this shifting language goes undetected, as does its impoverishing impact upon educational practice.” This language is already prevalent in Montessori discourse.
We cannot ignore the demands of public accountability and it is not surprising when Montessorians bow to pressure to align the “Montessori curriculum” with state curricula or core standards. According to a number or sources on curriculum theory, in most countries state curricula are designed independently of epistemological or methodological discourse. (Joseph, 2000) Thus, we find the very deliberate and coherent Montessori curriculum being adapted to align with curricula which may have been designed with very different aims in mind.
Furthermore, Montessorians are being called upon to show that our approach is successful. We have to justify our methodology. It seems that the existence of Montessori depends on, to some extent or another, adopting the language of the standards movement. Whether or not it is possible to do this without undermining the integrity of the Montessori program remains to be seen. The real danger is that, given the dominance of a particular lexicon, the ability to even conceive of conflicting paradigms of education may be lost, and we may end up adapting the Montessori curriculum to such an extent that it no longer contains any distinguishing features. Thus, it is essential to critically evaluate what are the features that define the Montessori curriculum and distinguish it from other views of curriculum. Kelly makes a strong argument for conceptual analysis, with the goal of reaching “a proper matching of theory and practice”:
“Concepts such as ‘aims,’ ‘objectives,’ ‘processes,’ ‘approaches,’ ‘standards,’ ‘ability,’ ‘progression,’ ‘continuity,’ ‘coherence,’ ‘evaluation,’ ‘appraisal,’ ‘accountability,’ and even ‘subjects’ or individually named subjects are far from being non-problematic in their meanings just as they are equally far, … from being value free. (Kelly, 2009, p. 29)
A Montessori Curriculum
For some, curriculum is simply the content to be covered. In Montessori this is sometimes seen to be analogous with the albums Montessori teachers produce during training, or even the range of materials on the shelf. For others, it is somewhat more complex — a “scope and sequence.” What these approaches do not overtly acknowledge is that, in the classroom, the individual educator implements the curriculum in accordance with a particular vision and understanding of what learning is, what should be learned, and how it should be learned. What makes these waters very difficult to navigate is that the individual in the classroom, or even the school as a whole, may have a very poorly defined notion of what their curriculum really is.
The danger lies in the lack of awareness that approaches to curriculum are never value neutral. They are the result of ideological stances regarding “education, society, knowledge and, indeed, humanity itself.” (Kelly, 2009, p. 89)
Defining Curriculum
There are multiple definitions of what constitutes curriculum. A starting point is this definition proposed by John Kerr:
“All the learning which is planned and guided by the school, whether it is carried on in groups or individually, inside or outside the school. (Cited by Kelly, 2009, p. 12)
This definition has clear limitations; it refers only to the explicitly planned learning and is integrally linked to the concept of school as an institution. Vic Kelly (2009, p. 7) points out that understanding curriculum only in terms of teaching and learning presents serious challenges if one wants to move past “the most simplistic levels for teaching of a largely unsophisticated and usually unproblematic kind.” On one hand, “curriculum” can simply mean the “subjects taught in schools”; on the other, it can be understood to include the “full range of experiences that individuals require for full participation in society.” (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009, p. 1) Ultimately, the way an individual (or an individual institution) defines the word reflects the approach that will be adopted. That this applies within Montessori, as well, is evident from the numerous documents that define “the” Montessori curriculum or align it to one or another state or national framework.
Montessori education is highly sophisticated and complex and, thus, requires an understanding of curriculum that surpasses the simplistic and unchallenging. A simplistic definition of curriculum as a program of studies “fails to take into account the educational and moral dimensions of the school curriculum.” (Kelly, 2009, p. 7)
From this perspective it is essential that anyone working to define or implement the “Montessori curriculum” undertake a deep exploration of the various ideologies that impact on curriculum and analyze their own beliefs to understand the impact these may be having on practice.
References
Bailey, R. (Ed.). (2010). The Philosophy of Education: An Introduction. London: Continuum.
Barth, R. S. (1975). Open education: Assumptions about children, learning and knowledge. In M. Golby, J. Greenwald, & R. West (Eds.), Curriculum Design. London: Croom Helm /Open University Press.
Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Bunnag, D. (2000). Classroom Adaptation: A Case Study of a Montessori School. In Proceedings of the Lilian Katz Symposium. Presented at the Early Childhood and Parenting (ECAP) Collaborative. Issues in Early Childhood Education: Curriculum, Teacher Education, & Dissemination of Information. Retrieved from http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/%5C/pubs/katzsym/bunnag.pdf
Daoust, C. J. (2004). An Examination Of Implementation Practices In Montessori Early Childhood Education. University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Egan, K. (1978). What Is Curriculum? Curriculum Inquiry, 65–72. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1179791
Eisner, E. W., & Vallance, E. (Eds.). (1974). Conflicting Conceptions Of Curriculum. Berkely, CA: McCutchan Publishing.
Hendriksen, J. L. (2010). Montessori Education In The Netherlands – An Individual Colour To A Universal Method. Montessori Europe, (1/2), 22 – 25. Retrieved from https://www.montessori-europe.com/more-newsletter
Jensen, M. (2004). Development Of The Early Childhood Curricular Beliefs Inventory: An Inventory To To Identify Preservice Teachers’ Early Childhood Curricular Orientation. Retrieved from Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations. Paper 3530.
Joseph, P. (2000). Conceptualizing curriculum. In P. Joseph, S. Bravmann, M. Windschitl, E. Mikel, & N. Green (Eds.), Cultures of curriculum (pp. 1 – 14). Mahwah, NJ, USA:: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kelly, A. V. (2009). The Curriculum: Theory And Practice (6th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Kramer, R. (1988). Maria Montessori: A biography. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Lillard, A. S. (2011). What Belongs in a Montessori Primary Classroom? Results from a Survey of AMI and AMS Teacher Trainers. Montessori Life: A Publication of the American Montessori Society, 23(3), 18–32. Retrieved from http://www.montessori-science.org/Lillard_montessori_primary_classroom_survey_AMI_AMS_teacher_trainers.pdf
Lillard, A. S. (2012). Preschool Children’s Development In Classic Montessori, Supplemented Montessori, And Conventional Programs. Journal of School Psychology, 50(3), 379–401. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2012.01.001
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2009). Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, And Issues (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Schiro, M. (2008). Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions And Enduring Concerns. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Montessori Leadership / 2013 / p 10
by Sharon Caldwell | Montessori Secondary / High School, The International Montessori Council

Hi! We are the secondary students of Bogor Montessori School, the first Secondary Montessori school in Indonesia. We would like to share our ‘Live-In’ experience in Jogjakarta. Every academic year, we have a ‘Live-In’ program. During a Live In, the students stay in a house and follow the routines of our foster parents according to their occupation. This year we had the Live In in Yogyakarta. We had a great time in Yogyakarta, and we hope that you’ll have fun reading it as well.
On the morning of September 24, 2013, we gathered at a mall in Bogor to begin our journey to Seokarno-Hatta airport and fly to Yogyakarta. We arrived in Yogyakarta at 2.30 pm and start our journey to Candi Prambanan. We arrived at Candi Prambanan around 3.30 pm.
Then we started our tour of the Prambanan Temple. For some of us, that was the first time we went to Candi Prambanan. At around 4.30 pm, we finished our tour at Prambanan and went to a church in Wonosari, a village about one hour from Yogyakarta, where we will meet our foster parents and be divided into pairs. At around 6 or 7 pm, we finally arrived at the church. We were late. After a short briefing, we were finally divided. There were 13 secondary students who joined this Live In. The students were Diana, Denise, Xerraphim, Eunike, Michelle, Destria, Orin, Raymond, Axel, Lucky, Oka, Christo, and Nadira. Diana was with Michelle; Xerraphim was with Destria; Raymond with Christo; and Oka with Orin. Since there were odd numbers of students, one of our friends, Denise, didn’t get any partner and stayed alone in her foster parents’ house.
The following morning, we all went through different routines, but most of our foster parents are farmers and so most of us either went to the field or fed some animals. Two of our foster families are not farmers. One family is a Ronde seller, and the other family is Sate and Soto seller (note: ronde, sate and soto are the names of Javanese traditional foods.) There, the weather was very hot, because it was summer. So most of us didn’t stay in the fields for a long time. The farmers there don’t plant any paddy, but vegetables instead, and one plants grass to feed cows and goats. Diana and Michelle helped their foster parents prepare the ingredients for soto and sate, Axel and Lucky cropped spinach in their foster parents’ field, Orin and Oka prepared the field for cultivation, and Xerraphim and Destria fed their foster parents’ animals.
Most of our houses are far away from each other, and most of our houses have gigantic kitchens. Some houses only have two rooms and some have three rooms. Most of the houses are not well-built. Most of them are partly covered with tiles, and some of the house walls are made of wood. Almost all of the bathrooms are located outside the house and are relatively clean.
The next day we followed our foster parents’ routines again and in the afternoon went to the beach with the teachers. They picked us up at the church at 3 pm. We arrived in the beautiful Drini Beach at approximately 4 pm and, after taking some pictures, we headed for the waters. After we finished, we took a bath and had dinner and ate fresh grilled fish from the sea. The teachers then drove us back to each of our foster parents’ houses. That was our last night there.
Around 9 am our foster parents took us to the church, where we first gathered when we came. We took pictures with them and made a video about our days living with them. Approximately 30 minutes after, we took off to our hotel in Yogyakarta.
We stayed in LPP Garden Hotel that was located near Sanata Dharma University, where we practiced for our presentation about our school tomorrow (Saturday). Minutes after we arrived in our hotel, we went for lunch in “Sabar Menanti” restaurant, which is near our hotel. Then we went to Sanata Dharma University and practiced. At 4 pm, we went to Hotel Yogyakarta Plaza to meet Ms. Sharon Caldwell, from the Montessori Foundation. We chatted with her and asked some questions to her about Montessori and some about herself. We were there for about two hours and only left her hotel at 6 pm.
We walked back to Sanata Dharma and practiced again for another hour. After that, we went to Malioboro, a famous shopping and culinary area in Yogyakarta for some needed fun. In Malioboro, we were divided into groups of three students and one teacher to roam freely and pick what we wanted to eat. We were also given a budget from the teachers of Rp.15.000 (note: around 1.5 USD) each for our food, if we spent more, we need to pay the extra charge ourselves. The teachers gave us an hour to eat and buy what we wanted, then we went back to our meeting point and drove to the hotel. At the hotel in our own rooms we finally got some rest and got a chance to clean ourselves after a long day.
In the morning after breakfast, we prepared to go to Sanata Dharma university for the presentation and the AIMS conference. During the AIMS conference, we also sold some of our arts and crafts we had made at school. The presentation went well, and we also sold some of the things we sold.
And in the afternoon, we went to the airport, and flew back to Jakarta.
http://www.bogormontessorischool.com/index.html
Montessori Leadership / December 2013 / p 26