[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

Which do you think is more likely to develop students into citizens capable of independent thought:

a) Sitting at a desk. Not allowed to talk unless called upon. Exactly following a schedule determined by authority figures.

b) Being free to move about the room. Able to choose your activity with your peers.A constructivist or "discovery" model, where students learn concepts from working with materials, rather than by direct instruction.

The first describes the typical public school. The second describes a Montessori school https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori_education

Given the inertia of the system, it is unlikely that the public education system can be reformed from what it is. Why not support parents choosing a school based on what they consider best for their children as long as the schooling meets minimum standards? However, when politicians support this options, there are people that paint them as villains for "not supporting public education". Someone can support "public education" the concept of educating the public, and not support "public education" the system which is often driven by various special interest groups.

[GVIrish]

My school district actually offers public Montessori classrooms. It's a lottery to to get in but it is available.

The reason people get up in arms about the whole "school choice" thing is that it is often used as a way to disguise attacks on the public education system. 'Give people vouchers so they can choose whatever school they want.'

Many times it is meant to funnel money into private charter schools and starve the public education system. There are no price controls so the reality is that people will still be priced out of the best private schools.

Not saying everyone who supports vouchers has ulterior motives but there are some people pushing them who absolutely have ulterior motives. And ultimately I don't think that the public school is hopeless because there are plenty of districts and even states that have great schools. It's just that there's a huge gulf between the best public schools in America and the worst.

[bsder]

Allocate the same teacher/student ratio and randomize the students in a public school and at a private Montessori and get back to me with the data.

Most private schools do better only because they weed out the expensive problems and force them back to the public system. The moment you randomize the students, the private schools drop back to the mean (or, generally, worse).

I find this unfortunate, because education is in dire need of some real, evidence-based, advances. We have a lot of new data about achievement and learning.

However, putting it to practice requires money, time and a LOT of effort. And you will have to fight the parents, too.

[dragonwriter]

> Most private schools do better only because they weed out the expensive problems and force them back to the public system.

The single biggest factor is that private schools, as non-default choices, automatically filter for parental engagement in education, even before considering the filters they put in place in terms of admissions criteria.

Students with parents engaged in their education do better.

[frabbit]

> Students with parents engaged in their education do better

IMHO this is the crucial thing. And it is one of the aspects of Montessori that some parents who are simply aspirational-consumers are a bit thrown by initially.

[frabbit]

Private Montessori schools often have a much higher pupil/teacher ratio than public schools: the age-mixed structure of the class which encourages children more adept in particular tasks to work with those who are less adept makes this metric less important.

[humanrebar]

> Most private schools do better only because they weed out the expensive problems and force them back to the public system.

This happens with public schools except the mechanism is raising housing prices until problematic people aren't even in the neighborhood.

[johnchristopher]

I am not downvoting you but I disagree. A friend of mine has two daughter in a Montessori like school. One of them has a young teacher, the other a more experienced one. One of them is severely lacking in basic arithmetic and grammar and the other one is striving.

Anecdata but when I add my experience and feedback from acquaintances in teaching position I conclude that the style doesn't matter as much as the teacher.

[malvosenior]

> One of them is severely lacking in basic arithmetic and grammar

This describes like 80% of people who graduate from public high school. I think it's worth acknowledging that most people struggle with what a lot of us consider "the basics".

[frabbit]

"Montessori" on its own does not mean too much: there are large gaps between AMI Montessori and Froebel, London School etc.

AMI only accepts trainee teachers who have already have a bachelors (as a minimum) and their pedagogy seems to be more rooted in experimental results than simply psychological theories (see e.g. Angeline Lillard's book for further details http://www.montessori-science.org/montessori_science_genius.... )

[mattcaldwell]

Striving for what???

[millisecond]

Thriving, I bet

[johnchristopher]

Woops, sorry :)p

"thriving"

[wahern]

c) Socratic method where an instructor guides inquiry using incisive questioning but never provides answers outright.

You'll always need "a)" for basic reading, writing, and arithmetic, and for providing basic facts and principles. "b)" doesn't even require a school as it's something kids should be doing, anyhow. It's also expensive, especially when you get to more abstract concepts, which is why this is a type of education typically only enjoyed by the privileged, both inside and outside school. And it can't accomplish the depth of understanding that "c)" can, nor cultivate more general analytical skills.

"c)" is the most important, but it also requires the most skilled teachers, especially in middle and high school. It could easily be applied more widely in elementary school, though.