[em-bee]

rather it wasn't montessori period. as it has been mentioned multiple times, the name montessori is not protected. anyone can claim to be a montessori teacher even if they didn't get any training. my wife went through AMI training. i have observed it at times. it is rigorous. and i have observed classes with trained teachers. the difference is noticeable

what i am saying is more like: if you didn't learn math in school you didn't have a good teacher. because no good teacher would fail at teaching you math. that's the very definition of what a good teacher is, and it is the definition of what good montessori is. the no true scotsman fallacy does not apply here.

if the expected outcome is not achieved, they were not doing it right.

[sersi]

My son goes to an AMI accredited school with AMI accredited teachers only. In general parents in elementary rave about the school. However, we did talk to a few parents whose kids are in elementary that had the same problem with mathematics. Their kids weren't interested in Math and they didn't do as much as they could do. The teacher did try to push a bit and the kids didn't do no mathematics but they were easily one year below what they should be. One of our close friend who had that specific problem with his daughter solved it easily with tuition but complains that it shouldn't be the case.

In kindergarten (casa), there's a lot of structure with individualised work and a child is unlikely to have gaps in a specific subject. On the other hand, I think that in elementary with the stronger focus on group projects, it's easier for certain subject to fall by the wayside if a student doesn't particularly care for them.

[rkomorn]

So every good Montessori school has a 100% success rate? Edit: and corollary, I guess, any Montessori school that has less than 100% success rate is not a good Montessori school?

> the no true scotsman fallacy does not apply here.

I don't buy this at all.

[em-bee]

the no true scotsman fallacy goes like this: no true scotsman would to X, but then you find one that does X.

but the situation here is more like: no true scotsman doesn't have scottisch ancestors or at least live in scotland.

i don't have scottish ancestors, and i have never even been there, so i can't ever be a true scotsman, as much as i'd like to be one.

it doesn't have to be a 100% success rate but being pretty far behind in math is a serious failure that makes me question the qualification of the teacher.

it can't be a failure of the montessori method because the very design and goal of the method is to not let that happen. or at least the chance is very small. and then it is still a failure of the teacher and not the method.

and since anyone can claim to do montessori without any certification, my bet is on that being the case.

it would be like a car without wheels. no true car is missing wheels. it could not fulfill its purpose.

[antasvara]

>it can't be a failure of the montessori method because the very design and goal of the method is to not let that happen. or at least the chance is very small. and then it is still a failure of the teacher and not the method.

High intensity interval training (HIIT) is an exercise method that involves very short (think under 5 minutes) intetvals of max effort exercise followed by breaks. This methodology validates very well in scientific literature, both conceptually and in exercise studies that show impressive fitness gains.

It also, by many accounts from researchers and participants, sucks super hard to do correctly. You need to be putting in truly grueling amounts of effort during the intervals to see the advertised benefits. Most people, even when they try to do this, aren't doing it correctly.

I think you could say two things about someone that's not seeing results from HIIT:

1. HIIT is super effective; if you're not getting good results, it's because you're doing it incorrectly. 2. HIIT is not actually a reasonable exercise regimen for most people; this means it's not a great exercise regimen.

Statement 1 is logically true. Statement 2 can be more or less true depending on the theory (walking 20 minutes a day is a lot more reasonable than requiring total exhaustion, whereas a theoretical routine that requires Tasering yourself is less reasonable and makes Statement 2 much more true).

What I've described as my experience in Montessori is definitely Statement 2. I'm sure the method has ways to combat my problems, and if I had gone to a "better" Montessori school it's entirely possible they would have dealt with them. But from what I've seen, these specific problems crop up enough that I think they're a fair criticism.