[mbateman]

dusts off HN account

I’m part of a now-large-ish Montessori startup and am a sort of Montessori scholar. The biography reviewed here is very good and worth checking out. Overall it’s the best of the biographies available, and is a significant improvement over Kramer’s from a few decades ago.

Just an aside: the extended tangents in the review about Montessori’s entrepreneurialism turning her method into a classist privilege are, uh, really strange. The idea in the review seems to be that the rarity and expense of Montessori in the US is because she charged for trainings and tried to parent some materials. Purely as a matter of historical fact, this is a narrative in search of evidence that isn’t there, and a narrative that isn’t really face plausible. Montessori education is rare because the progressive intellectuals that built the US school system adamantly and vociferously rejected Montessori for pedagogical reasons. There are just way better explanations available for why her work didn’t take hold more widely.

Glad to see Montessori and Stefano’s biography in particular getting coverage though. I’ve enjoyed reading the many comments here about people’s experiences with Montessori!

[warble]

Thanks - I'd be interested in your alternative explanations if you're willing to comment here? I know it's never simple, and often even just timing is a factor in markets. Sounds like you've given it a lot of thought though.

[mbateman]

Yes I think about it all the time, both presently and historically.

It's mainly an intellectual issue. That is: it's a dispute about what is true in development and education.

In the early 20th c., when American progressives and intellectuals were very interested in education, this dispute was explicit. The (nascent) educational establishment reviewed Montessori's works, attended her trainings and published criticisms, and held whole conferences on the problems with the method. She was very popular for about five years or so, but the popularity was grassroots. The intellectuals always thought she was wrong. Just as one example: the intellectual current in the US was to delay it until later for largely Rousseauvian reasons (reading is an adult imposition that children aren't naturally interested in). Montessori became famous in large part because she taught children how to read earlier. (This is mentioned in the review above.)

There were dozens of issues like this. Montessori thought there should be "an education of the senses"—but progressives critiqued this idea as incoherent. Montessori thought there should be specific, synthetically designed learning materials. Progressives thought there should be more natural experiences and fewer, if any, truly curricular "learning materials". Some thought her approach was too rigid, others too anarchic. Despite widespread public popularity, Dewey, his students, the NEA, and many many many others were vocally critical of her method. By 1916 it had all but vanished from the country, and wouldn't come back for over 40 years.

(There are modern versions of every single one of these critiques, but the overall educational scene is also just much less intellectual than it was a hundred years ago, so it's not as visible.)

But the first half of the 20th century is also precisely when the US school system took shape! It became bureaucratized, and US progressive educators themselves flip-flopped between different pedagogical approaches—from "project based" approaches to "efficiency" approaches that were more vocationally directed. By the time Montessorians clawed back some influence in the US, the basic shape of the system was already in place, and the only outlet it could take was as a grassroots movement. Which meant: lots of entrepreneurial women starting small schools in scattershot ways. Which means independent schools. Which means tuition.

The school system in the US is so badly broken that it also affects the nature and costs of independent schools. And Montessori schools are largely independent schools. So they are more expensive and less accessible. There's a very explicit narrative at play in the review above, one that concludes with completely unmerited swipes at Amazon/Day One. A frank look at current and historical school policy dynamics would conclude that the barrier to getting more Montessori education in the US is the public school system, and that philanthropic and entrepreneurial efforts to push Montessori forward are the only things that have kept it going at all.

The idea that Montessori schools are expensive, rare, and inaccessible because Montessori pushed them to be this way is really ridiculous. It's belied not just by the above narrative, which is a better explanation, but by decades of work that she did that was strongly characterized by humanitarian and activist efforts for the very poorest students, by many attempted (and mostly failed) partnerships that she attempted to engage in with any national government would listen, by her work in India during WWII (which has tremendous and ongoing influence), and more.

I wrote a Twitter thread (was a bit irritated when I banged this out, unfortunately) that makes some similar points here with a couple of specific citations, newspaper clippings, etc. https://twitter.com/mbateman/status/1499590385638821889

[microtherion]

> Just as one example: the intellectual current in the US was to delay [reading] until later for largely Rousseauvian reasons (reading is an adult imposition that children aren't naturally interested in). Montessori became famous in large part because she taught children how to read earlier. (This is mentioned in the review above.)

I must admit that before my children started attending Montessori schools, I had this naïve view that Montessori education was somewhat similar to Waldorf, while on matters like this, they are pretty much diametrically opposed. It's somewhat amusing that there are multiple alternative school systems that claim for themselves to be "child centric" but have such startingly different theories of what children really want or need.

[warble]

This is super interesting. Thank you! I'm off to read more.

[nouveaux]

Just checked out your startup and it looks interesting. I glanced through the different brands but didn't see anything related to public schools. Are you guys doing anything on that front? In your opinion, what are the challenges to more widespread adoption of Montessori in the US.

[cwilsonsf]

There certainly were objections to Montessori and, as we see today, fierce arguments among the many thought leaders who dedicated their lives to transforming education. But I disagree that “progressive intellectuals” “adamantly and vociferously rejected Montessori for pedagogical reasons.” Education often becomes bogged down in idealogical warfare because we become distracted by differences instead of uniting on common ground. I think there is a lot of common ground, both historically and today. Building on that will advance both Montessori pedagogy and the transformation of education.

If you have not read “Founding Mothers and Others”, I highly recommend it. Many progressive schools were founded by women who studied with Montessori, sought to spread her pedagogy and gave her great respect and credit. Helen Salz and Flora Arnstein,founders of San Francisco’s Presidio Hill School, were inspired to launch their school after observing Montessori work with children in a glass walked classroom at the 1915 San Francisco Exposition. Other Californians attended her California lectures, studied her work, traveled to Italy or trained in her US programs. They went on to found schools and train teachers. This didn’t stop in 1916, indeed most of these schools were founded between 1918 and 194o. They still exist and acknowledge their Montessori roots.

Margaret Naumberg, who trained extensively with Montessori, simultaneously launched a public Montessori and a private one in New York. The schools had very different results but I don’t know why the public program was not replicated or sustained. I wonder what lessons we could learn from the difference in the public implementation and the private one which grew into The Children’s School, later the Walden School, which lasted for over 50 years.

Helen Parkhurst was purportedly the only person Maria Montessori authorized to train teachers. She is known as the “mother of the Dalton School” and the architect of the Dalton Plan which was extremely influential in inspiring school design not just in the US but internationally. Dalton remains a leading school in both popularity with families, credibility with college admissions offices, and with the education community. It would be interesting to learn how you think it is aligned with Montessorian pedagogy and how it differs.

The bigger question is what are the essential elements of a Montessori education and how are they adapted across different contexts? Should Montessori classrooms only have Montessori materials? For example, can they incorporate Caroline Pratt’s unit blocks? Can’t we teach educators to observe play with unit blocks & facilitate intellectual development through applying Montessori methods with these excellent non-Montessori materials?

Montessori principles are widely taught in education philosophy, early childhood, and child development courses. The basic principles are familiar but not the practices. Is that because the education establishment has shut them out or because the AMI & AMS have not made training accessible? That is probably a hot button question for a highly visible and rapidly growing start up but, IMO, the success of Higher Ground & the Bezos “Montessori inspired” schools will hinge on three things, accessibility, adaptability, and accountability. Indeed any form of transformation will have to tackle those three areas and that is one reason finding common ground is important.

Your work is interesting and important. Good luck!