Why do we introduce academics to children before 6?

[cxj]

I'm a new mom and not sure what kind of education philosophy I should choose for my little one. It seems to me that parents who send their kids to Montessori schools focus more on their children's academics (early literacy, math etc.) while parents who think childhood should be a "play"hood tend to send theirs to Waldorf or other play-based schools.

It also seems to me that among education methods that are disussed in this forum, Waldof, Reggio Emelia, Sudbury etc., only Montessori introduce writing, reading and math at an early age before 6. Could anybody explain from Montessori perspectives why young children need to learn to write, read, mathematics before 6? Can't they wait and learn after they go to kindergarten and elementary school?

[ADirrim]

In the conversations that I have with parents, I hear them express many different motivations for having their child attend Montessori schools (everything from wanting to cultivate independence in their child, to preserving their child's natural inquisitiveness, to permitting the child to have the highest possible amount of freedom and self-determination) but all of them share the basic desire of wanting their child to be happy and to begin their education in an environment which fulfills their deepest needs so that they can reach their full potential.

As to why children learn "academic" skills such as reading, writing, and mathematics earlier in a Montessori environment than they do in other approaches, Dr. Montessori (who began her work in education by working with children who were considered at the time to be uneducatable) observed that when provided with the freedom to choose their own activity, the children choose to do "work" (tasks that imitate the real life work of adults) over playing with toys (her original classroom included dolls and other playthings which she removed once she realized that children prefered to work instead).

Her method is the only one that is based in science (observation of actual children and their natural behaviors and preferences), rather than starting from the position of postulating or dictating what the nature of children "ought" to be (I take this to be the principle difference between Montessori and Waldorf- Waldorf begins with a lot of metaphysical presuppositions about the "true" nature of children based upon Anthroposophy).

Montessori noticed (through observation) that young children are in a sensitive period (a period of special sensitivity toward certain aspects in their environment) for acquiring language, being interested in small objects, ordering their environment, and learning grace and courtesy. At certain ages, there are aspects of the environment that the child absorbs (as opposed to learns) almost effortlessly. The job of the Montessori guide is not so much to teach the child, as to prepare the environment with the correct tools to meet the child's natural inclinations and interests. A good example is learning spoken language- it wouldn't make sense to ask why someone would teach their child verbs at the age of one, because the parents are not so much teaching the child as they are providing a language rich environment that meets the child's need to acquire language. The child isn't "taught" or "coached", they absorb it from the environment. That is Montessori's idea of auto-education. The environment is supplied with the tools that a child needs to teach herself (and that is why she speaks of children learning to write or read "spontaneously"). Most children are naturally interested in learning to read to write, and to understand basic mathematical concepts (like how many). Montessori observed that when their needs were met, the children were calm, peaceful, joyful, and capable of extended concentration.

Of course, historically speaking, Montessori was teaching children in Italian ghettos where the parents were overjoyed that this highly gifted woman (Italy's first female doctor) was teaching their children to read and write. Her books contain many accounts of parents asking her to help their children have a better life- it's a bit of a bougeoise luxury that we have to worry that our children might be pressured to learn (in other places, even in this country, I imagine parents are overjoyed to find that their children will have the opportunity to learn).

Finally, Montessori believed that sensitive periods are the best time to learn related skills. Just as a young child can learn a second language almost effortlessly but an adult (who has passed the sensitive period for language learning) must study and struggle (and still may never master it as completely), young children have amazing powers to absorb information effortlessly and an educational system which matches what is available in the classroom to the developmental needs of the child stands the best hope both of facilitating the child's mastery of the information and meeting their developmental needs.

That said, obviously you should seek out whatever educational system you feel would be the best match for your child and your family.

I hope that helps!

Abigail Miller
www.bloommontessori.com
www.bloommontessori.blogspot.com

[alegna]

If a child is interested, why not give them the opportunity?

-Angela

[lach]

Why not? Real question. The claim that I see pretty frequently about how you can't be both "a child" and literate has always struck me as kind of offensive to kids who pick up on academics easily and early. I've spent most of my adult life working with kids, and they love to learn things. I would never send my child to a school where they were told that they were too young to learn something.

I chose Montessori because it's the only educational philosophy I could find where kids can learn at their own speed, instead of being dictated to about when the "right" time is learn something.

I come at this from the perspective of a late educational bloomer with a profoundly gifted sister who was an extremely early educational bloomer. To have withheld academics from her would have been cruel: to force me into early academics would have been cruel (indeed, my kindergarten teacher told my parents that they had to accept the fact that I was never going to learn how to read and that they should put me in special education).

Montessori pushes nothing: it gives children the tools and the environment to learn at their own pace using toys and games that they love. I've never heard from a Montessori grad who was unhappy with his or her education, or the parent of a Montessori grad who was unhappy with their children's education. That was very telling to me when I was thinking about what sort of education I want for my kids, and it's certainly not something I can say about any other form of education (especially Waldorf, FWIW).

[GuildJenn]

I can really only speak to my own experience, as I'm sure there are "pushy" Montessori schools out there.

My background: I was a very early reader who loved learning early. When we toured Waldorf actually I had a very visceral reaction to the idea that kids shouldn't want to read early. No one pushed me and it was a great delight in my life, so that sort of floored me.

What I didn't want for my son:
- for him to be "pushed" by which I mean forced to sit through lessons or do activities that he was really not interested in
- to be forced into group activities *all day*. I don't mind a morning circle or a cooperative game or whatever but I hate the way kids' natural rhythms are not always respected in some environments.
- to learn in two dimensions or a rote way (not meaning stories/singing) - like "educational" software, worksheets that were not directly related to an interest, etc. As a former special ed assistant I had met too many kids who had no basic numeracy skills because they simply hadn't had the chance to handle a lot of objects, count them, stack them, group them, etc. I firmly believe human beings are wired to learn via touch, smell, taste, seeing, and hearing.


What I wanted for my son:
- that he was in a safe, happy, calm environment
- that he was respected as an individual within that environment
- that the environment supported our core values (peaceful interaction; some attention paid to good nutrition, the environment, etc.)
- that he had opportunities to learn at whatever pace he would set for himself in both directions - not pushed, but not assumed to be uninterested in something

Then I watched my son a lot at home in the time leading up to making a decision and my observations of my particular child were very much in line with what I understood about Montessori. What he naturally loved to do were the things I was doing (household chores etc. - the sensory stuff) and examine little objects and stack blocks and look at books.

He was not especially drawn to the more fantastical stories and items we had around. I've said in other threads that as a writer, I find a lot of creativity is actually not based in some fantastical universe but in observation of the natural world and THEN imagining from there. It seemed to me that my son was very naturally following that flow and grappling very much with things like - gravity, spacial relations, numbers, vocabulary, etc.

I also had no concerns about whether there would be enough imaginary play in his life 'cause our house is pretty geared towards that.

When I went to our particular Montessori to observe what struck me was that of all the places I went, it was the most respectful of my son's own interests as a person. The way the classroom was structured was designed to spark interest in things, with a wide variety of activities, and everything was very, very concrete. The work cycle and mats really, I felt, provided a safe personal space for kids to explore. It wasn't flashy, which I don't like in a space much. I loved the way fine motor skills were introduced in cool ways to really develop kids' hands so they wouldn't get frustrated when they wanted to colour or write.

I do like that Montessori has an idea of going from a to b to c. I have nothing against introducing small kids to the "three rs" as long as they're into it.

I believe that most, if not all people, are pretty much driven from one thing to the next; to learn and grow. I have no problem with having activities that naturally lead from counting to understanding ones and tens to adding to subtracting. I *do* have a problem pushing very young kids to make those moves on some kind of a preset schedule ("It's March, so it's time to subtract"). And Montessori was, pretty frankly, one of the few environments I found where there was both a progression and a structured way for children to truly move at their own pace.

I'm not anti play-based preschools either, but the ones I toured felt a bit chaotic. I also wasn't entirely sure the teachers were that engaged at an individual level; they seemed to be doing a lot of "traffic cop" stuff when I was there. That was again really individual but it certainly pushed me towards our Montessori.

At our school, the teachers were/are educated and experienced and kind, but also not... how to put this? They didn't seem to be sticky-sweet or overly enthusiastic like um, Barney or Diego something. They seemed grounded and calm. This is not unique to Montessori, I don't think, but in our area it was fairly unique. There was none of that high-pitched trying-to-get-kids-excited thing, which I personally like. My son does get seriously joyful and excited, but I wanted him to be doing that because he was actually joyful and not because the teachers were turning cartwheels.

In terms of balancing the day, our Montessori ends at about 3:15 and then there's Lego and cars and that kind of thing available. Also, the teachers are okay with kids using the materials creatively as long as they're respecting the materials (not throwing them around, etc.)

I've heard people say that Montessori isn't enough "fun" but I'm not really sure who decided what "fun" is in that way. I consider a lot of the modern definition of fun to be a product of toy marketers actually. My son has tons of fun. We've been really happy. He is proud of what he learns, but if he feels like goofing around, that's ok.

I am not a Montessori fanatic and I'm not sure it works for every child but for mine it has been a fabulous match.

[ollyoxenfree]

Originally Posted by cxj

Can't they wait and learn after they go to kindergarten and elementary school?

Can't they wait? Sure, they could wait. For some children it might be fine to wait. For others, not. For some, it would be detrimental.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with Montessori methodology. It isn't "drill and kill" at all.

I'll enthusiastically endorse what others have already said here, but this point is one of the most important:

Originally Posted by lach

I chose Montessori because it's the only educational philosophy I could find where kids can learn at their own speed, instead of being dictated to about when the "right" time is learn something.

Montessori methods expose children to reading, writing and math and provide an opportunity to learn in these areas. It's child-directed though, so if the student is not inclined to pursue these areas, that's fine. Montessori is interested in the whole child, not just academics, so there are plenty of other activities for a child to focus on. That isn't necessarily true of other schools.

I like the Montessori philosophy because it respects the child's abilities and interests and believes in the competence of the child.

I'm not sure any other approach trusts the child to the same degree.

[noobmom]

Originally Posted by ADirrim

As to why children learn "academic" skills such as reading, writing, and mathematics earlier in a Montessori environment than they do in other approaches, Dr. Montessori (who began her work in education by working with children who were considered at the time to be uneducatable) observed that when provided with the freedom to choose their own activity, the children choose to do "work" (tasks that imitate the real life work of adults) over playing with toys (her original classroom included dolls and other playthings which she removed once she realized that children prefered to work instead).
Abigail Miller
www.bloommontessori.com
www.bloommontessori.blogspot.com

With so many well-written responses already, I don't feel like I need to add mine, but I wanted to highlight this point. My DS is very much this way. He'd rather do what I'm doing than play with his toys half the time. Today he helped me mop the floor, cook, and he cleared the table and put all the dishes in the dishwasher after lunch. I didn't ask him to do these things, he wanted to. Insisted actually, which slowed me down a bit. Did I mention he's only 3?

I think the real proof, though, is the fact that my son is excited to go to school every day. If it was boring work to him, he wouldn't want to go, right? When he comes home he can tell me what he has worked on, what he didn't finish, and what he plans to do tomorrow. All in all, Montessori has been a great fit for him.

One more thing. Think about the number of hours your child will actually be at school. For us, it's 4 hours a day. That leaves the other 8-10 waking hours at home. If I want to be generous, I can set aside 3 of those hours for eating, bathing, etc. That leaves 5-7 hours of essentially free play. While I don't have anything against play-based preschools (and I prefer them to worksheet+desk academic preschools), I like the fact that DS's hours at Montessori give him exposure to something other than what I can offer at home. He still gets plenty of time to just play, it's just at home instead. And like I said, even then he often choose to do chores with me.

[lach]

Originally Posted by ADirrim

Her method is the only one that is based in science (observation of actual children and their natural behaviors and preferences), rather than starting from the position of postulating or dictating what the nature of children "ought" to be (I take this to be the principle difference between Montessori and Waldorf- Waldorf begins with a lot of metaphysical presuppositions about the "true" nature of children based upon Anthroposophy).

I think this is such a good point. Based on the research I've done, Montessori's educational theories are the only ones I can think of that were actually developed after the person spent a lot of time with children. All of the other major educational theorists who influenced so much of what people take for granted about education (Froebel, Pestalozzi, Steiner, Dewey, Pierce) were philosophers who were trying to imagine what a child should be like. All of these guys were either basing their theories either on obscure 19th century Christianity-tinged occult beliefs, or just plain on Rousseau... who, quite frankly, knew jack about children and didn't want anything to do with them in practice.

That's another reason I like Montessori: it's actually based on science and developed by a scientist, and not a philosopher. I was never any good at it when I was in school, but I like science I love research (which is why I've read so many bloody books about education!) and I like it when other people do research for me. I hate books without footnotes!

[SomedayMom]

Everyone has written such great responses outlining why I was drawn to Montessori and I can say for sure that both of my boys are so darn happy at school, it's amazing to me. They ARE learning so much but my 5 year old was never this excited about anything in playbased preschool. He has so many fun stories to tell me every day.

I find that when I start to worry (and you can see a couple of worrywart posts from me in this forum) that it is all about ME and my traditional background. I was worrying about things he wasn't doing and realized over the few days after the worry hit me and I posted that it wasn't about him, it was about me, and I backed off. He's better off for it. He pursues what he is interested in and when I sit back and watch the Montessori magic, it really is just magic. My boys have always been happy and goodnatured kids, but there is something different now, something that never fails to make us all smile.

[MattBronsil]

Originally Posted by cxj

I'm a new mom and not sure what kind of education philosophy I should choose for my little one. It seems to me that parents who send their kids to Montessori schools focus more on their children's academics (early literacy, math etc.) while parents who think childhood should be a "play"hood tend to send theirs to Waldorf or other play-based schools.

It also seems to me that among education methods that are disussed in this forum, Waldof, Reggio Emelia, Sudbury etc., only Montessori introduce writing, reading and math at an early age before 6. Could anybody explain from Montessori perspectives why young children need to learn to write, read, mathematics before 6? Can't they wait and learn after they go to kindergarten and elementary school?

Why should we stop children from doing what they love simply because they can wait?

"Can we go to the zoo?"
"Yes, but you can wait until high school to do that!"

"Can I visit with my grandmother and make cookies?"
"Yes, but wait until you're 18!"

That idea, of making children wait for something they love to do and is beneficial for them, is something I don't understand about Waldorf. (Note: That's not a shot at Waldorf education. It's a choice that parents make and many parents that I see on here are happy with it. I'm glad there is a system that meets what they want. I respect it...I just don't get it!)

Another thought: Why separate what happens in the Montessori classroom with play? I remember growing up in Montessori and telling my friends I got to play all day at school. I've had parents concerned that their son/daughter comes home and says that he/she "played with beads all day." (I actually wrote an article about that, which can be found here):

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n15615315/

(Note: The typographical errors are a result of the company that put it online. They're not mine in the original version.)

Even as I went through elementary school, I always imagined the Montessori classroom as a place of just fun games and activities to do. They were different from my toys at home, and I knew that, but I saw them as simply cool, sometimes shiny, toys where I got to play all day.

Most of the "play based" programs I see out there are not things I would classify as real play. It's usually teacher-run, even if it is child-centered.

One final thought ~ I find it disrespectful to a child to say to them, "You can't learn that now." I want to be able to help children learn as much as they want and enable them to grow and investigate those things they love. I want them to make their own judgments about what they like and do not like. I also want them to develop their own personalities and have as much freedom to do that as possible while still maintaining a safe environment for them to do that.

[mamadebug]

There have been a lot of great replies! I think it is important to say that the end goal of Montessori isn't actually to teach children under the age of 6 to read, write and do math. There are a lot of activities that come before a child learns to read, write or do math (in the way that a non-Montessori person would recognize). The main goal for the child this age is to give them the space and resources to develop independence, to develop the senses and the hand (fine motor skills), etc. All of these things lay the ground work for reading, writing and math, which then is sort of a natural progression and understanding.

Also, Montessori identified what she called "sensitive periods" - or times when a child could easily learn a skill. She identified the time between the ages of 3 and 6 as the sensitive period for many of the skills related to reading, writing and math. My experience as a teacher is that this holds true.

[cxj]

Thanks all for your wonderful replies which is helpful for me to think a bit further. Acually I like most part of Montessori, like learning at kid's own speeding, encouraging independence, concentration, no reward or punishment etc. I'm glad that all of you are happy with Montessori education and obviously your kids love to learn and thrive in his/her school environment.

But there are some other things I'm still thinking and questioning. Is Montessori for every chidren? No doubt there are children who love to learn academic things at an early age. And I totally agree it's not right to hold these kids back when they show their readiness. Montessori would be a perfect match for these children. However, is there also another type of children who are more free-spirited, who prefer playing much more to learning at that age? What would be the percentage of these 2 kinds of children among all the children out there? For these children, is it a wrong idea of sending them to or for them to stay in a Montessori school? I read several posts talking about how their kids were unhappy in a Montessori school but then thrived in a play-based school. I’m not saying that Montessori education is not good at all, but maybe it’s not a good fit for some children.

I raise this question because one of my freinds works at a Montessori and Reggio combined school. They have both Montessori materials as well as other open ended toys like blocks, sand table, water table etc. What she observed is quite the opposite of what Dr.Montessori observed 100 years ago. She said usually the children would love to play those open-ended toys or sand or water for a long time and don't want to go to Montessori materials area. Well, there indeed are a couple of children who linger around Montessori materials longer but it's really just like 1 or 2 of them among all of 20 kids.

Sorry that I might be off the topic a bit but Montessori work, though not limited to, does include academic work, right? When talking about preference of work and play, people always use Dr. Montessori's own observation example which was 100 years ago. I would love to hear some current researches or observations showing the same inclination in today's society. Most Montessori schools nowadays would not even allow these toys in the classrooms so all the choices the children in the classroom could make are among Montessori materials. It's interesting to see what the children would choose, if you put modern open-ended playing materials together with Montessori materials.

[sunshineafterrain]

Hi I am a home daycare provider who has incorporated Montessori into my program, I am far from an expert but I can tell you that my kids do choose Montessori materials and activities amongst dolls, trucks, blocks and other open ended activities- they do not choose Montessori exclusively but it is available and they use it at will

Currently the pink tower, cylinder blocks, color tablets and activities like transferring are available to them. I have the sandpaper letters and moveable alphabet and other items which I have not introduced yet

I have also introduced the work rugs and let children know that they may work alone and it had been very respectful and lessened alot of frustration and tension. It is concrete and the children know that it is equally ok to have friends join in or to say they prefer to work alone

I've also played the silence game, which they've loved and used the 3 part lesson which I love and find very respectful and non-pushy, it keeps a very positive tone

Also I have incorporated alot of practical life skills and the parents are surprised when their child chooses to clean

I had an infant join my group recently and although I'd like to do more with the 3yo's, I find that allowing the kids all these free choices ~and trusting them~ is benefiting all of us

I just find this philosophy so very respectful of children and it truly starts where the child is developmentally and individually- most kids are pretty uneven in skills excelling in some areas and needing work in other areas- and this is not just academic it includes gross motor and coordination, social skills, self help etc etc

I worked at a great play-based preschool and so many things we did there were Montessori inspired- with no credit to Maria Montessori at all...this always astounds me

Also from my reading, Montessori incorporated nature and outdoors- there are many old photos of the children outside, she had lots of ideas for physical development as well. I also read that she was surprised by the early reading and writing- it was not her goal but a by-product of setting up a wonderful, enriched and respectful environment for the children-- she truly focused on the whole child

I'll stop but I do see children choosing and enjoying M materials amongst typical choices

[mom2ponygirl]

Originally Posted by cxj

Could anybody explain from Montessori perspectives why young children need to learn to write, read, mathematics before 6? Can't they wait and learn after they go to kindergarten and elementary school?

Well mine couldn't even wait until preschool, so I guess you just gotta follow their lead sometimes.

We picked a Montessori preschool, not because of the philosophy, but because the quiet energy of the place made my dd feel safe. The play based preschool was too chaotic for her. The Montessori classroom was peaceful and provided some structure and rhythm that she could understand and thrive in.

I believe she did the vast majority of her 'academic' learning at home - playing with her older cousins computer games, reading with us, etc. She did lots of fantasy play at Montessori, along with the 'work'.

I think Montessori done well has immense potential for lots of kids. I wish our school had had an elementary program that was as strong as their primary program.

[GuildJenn]

Originally Posted by cxj

But there are some other things I'm still thinking and questioning. Is Montessori for every chidren? No doubt there are children who love to learn academic things at an early age. And I totally agree it's not right to hold these kids back when they show their readiness. Montessori would be a perfect match for these children. However, is there also another type of children who are more free-spirited, who prefer playing much more to learning at that age? What would be the percentage of these 2 kinds of children among all the children out there? For these children, is it a wrong idea of sending them to or for them to stay in a Montessori school? I read several posts talking about how their kids were unhappy in a Montessori school but then thrived in a play-based school. I’m not saying that Montessori education is not good at all, but maybe it’s not a good fit for some children.... It's interesting to see what the children would choose, if you put modern open-ended playing materials together with Montessori materials.

I think there are a couple of things here that stood out for me as thinking points.

First, I bet there are some kids for whom Montessori is not a good match. Having been a teacher I feel pretty confident that for ANY approach there is ALWAYS a child for whom it's not a great match. They're not little automatons.

But mostly when I read people's experiences it seems to come down to implementation of Montessori in a particular school, and I think that match is even more likely to fail - like you can get a particularly rigid implementation that fails for more kids. That sort of thing.

I'm not sure what I think about your use of the term free-spirited in the sense of being a bad match for Montessori. I get the idea that you have a perception that Montessori isn't for imaginative creative kids or kids who like to do their own thing and our experience is just very different from that - actually my experience as a creative adult is different from that. I find that our Montessori really engages kids in the wonder of the natural, observable world and the kids themselves supply the rest.

When you present Queen Mab as fact, for example, or as a story, you are not really any more imaginative than if you present the life of Marie Curie or a story about Marie Curie. Imagination is when a child takes a story or an archetype and builds on it, and I find that Montessori is great for, myself.

When you keep saying academics I sort of wonder if you've had the chance to observe at length in a Montessori classroom, because although as I said I really like that Montessori "knows where it's going" academically, I don't find that the classroom or materials have an academic feel in the sense that /I/ as a classically-trained person would define academics. Like the bank game is purely math really, but the "game" of going to the bank is play, and can be quite imaginary, so does that read as play or academics?

For the friends with the R-E and M class combined, well, you pretty much identified why I'm not a huge fan of hybrids as a way to evaluate.

I feel like there is almost always a bias on the part of the teacher or even on the part of peer leaders towards one particular kind of activity, and most kids pick up on that bias and run with it. If the teacher perceives that a sandbox is more fun than a pink tower, probably the kids will follow suit. Or maybe the kids will crowd around the sandbox because a particular other friend is - not necessarily a bad thing at all (and Montessori lets kids work together too) but it is then a socially influenced choice.

That's actually one of the things I like about the guide role at Montessori - they are really aware of the balance between guiding and letting the child explore.

It's also true that a lot (although not all, like the practical life) of the Montessori materials don't look like the "toys" that we have at home, so kids may not initially feel as comfortable with them.

But it's my observation with my kid anyway (sample size of one!) that a lot of what he likes to do with open-ended toys is to use them to explore the same concepts as he does with the equally open-ended materials at school. If you take a piece of Lego with eight little bumps on it and you learn that you can cover the 8 little bumps with 4 of the pieces with 2 little bumps, or 2 of the pieces with four little bumps then you are learning quite a bit about numbers and also spatial relations... which I think all kids will learn.

I just like that Montessori will eventually come in and build on that in a coherent way, which I guess is the "academic" component.

[GuildJenn]

Oh and P.S. - I wanted to say that it's great to get your head around all the different philosophies but for us I definitely found that the end choice was pretty gut-level.

Some environments just felt wrong for my son and others felt right. I think it's hugely important to take the time to go and really sit in a place and see what it's about, if you can afford the luxury of time to do that.

The one exception was Waldorf. I really thought we would go with Waldorf in part because some friends had such a good experience with it. In the end, I had a very strong gut-level reaction to just one aspect (the reading) even though I liked the rest of the feel of it, and then when I looked at the philosophy (triggered by the reading thing) I found it really wasn't right for our family.

[mamaofthree]

i think that it all depends on the child. i have a dd who was reading on her own at 4. she wanted to do it, no forcing by us at all. i have a ds who wasn't ready to read until 7 or so and one who is still in the beginning stages and he is 8. and a another son who is so ready to read and he just turned 5. you will find out what works best for your child has they grow. what type of education works best for them. it is so great that we have so many choices.and you can try things out at home if you want.

h

[ollyoxenfree]

I've always said that there are some children who aren't a good match for Montessori, but I think that it's more true to say there are some families that aren't a good match. Parents who don't agree or who don't understand the Montessori philosophy and methodology, so they don't foster it themselves, and children who don't/won't integrate it well - these families find other approaches that they prefer. That's great. That's why it's important to have choices available.

Originally Posted by cxj

However, is there also another type of children who are more free-spirited, who prefer playing much more to learning at that age? What would be the percentage of these 2 kinds of children among all the children out there? For these children, is it a wrong idea of sending them to or for them to stay in a Montessori school?

In the Montessori classrooms I've observed, there have been plenty of free-spirited, playful children. My dc attended a few different programs because we moved around to different cities. There may be rigid, intense Montessori schools but we haven't experienced them. We've found fun, flexible, dynamic classrooms.

PP have talked about learning being fun and playful. I really recommend observing at some different Montessori schools to get an idea of what really happens in the classrooms. There is a lot of fun and play.

For example, at Montessori, my dc enjoyed actually preparing mid-morning snack - setting out the crackers on plates, pouring juice into cups and serving it to their classmates, and then cleaning up after, wiping down the tables and sweeping away the crumbs MORE than they enjoyed playing "pretend cooking" on their friend's plastic kitchen set on the weekends. I'm not sure how being free-spirited with plastic or wooden food would have been more interesting and fun for them or better for their development.

Originally Posted by cxj

I raise this question because one of my freinds works at a Montessori and Reggio combined school. They have both Montessori materials as well as other open ended toys like blocks, sand table, water table etc. What she observed is quite the opposite of what Dr.Montessori observed 100 years ago. She said usually the children would love to play those open-ended toys or sand or water for a long time and don't want to go to Montessori materials area. Well, there indeed are a couple of children who linger around Montessori materials longer but it's really just like 1 or 2 of them among all of 20 kids.

I'm a little curious about the combined Montessori and Reggio school. How well were the teachers trained in Montessori? Did they have MACTE accreditation? I'm not sure I would trust the assessment of someone who was purportedly providing Montessori programming without proper training themselves. If the teacher did not know how to properly guide the children in use of the materials, it's not surprising that the children didn't use them or had little interest in them.

Again, I encourage you to observe different programs. You may find that you and your children prefer a different approach - there are many out there. You may find that the Montessori schools available to you are too traditional, or not traditional enough. Or like many others, you may find that your children thrive in a Montessori program. Best of luck with your search.

[lach]

Originally Posted by cxj

However, is there also another type of children who are more free-spirited, who prefer playing much more to learning at that age?

Well, I think the point is that children learn by playing and play by learning. They're one and the same in the age group we're talking about. The difference is the tools you give them to play with and learn. In a Montessori classroom, the tools are designed to teach specific concepts without the children ever having a clue that they're learning. They think that they're just playing.

FWIW, I think of my daughter as a free spirit. She loves playing dressup, and it's rare that she's at home and not wearing some sort of animal hat, wings, cape, tutu, or some other costume. She's pretty high energy, I think. She's already making up little stories. She loves playing with her dolls and playing imaginatively. And she loves her Montessori school.

I'm sure that there are children who would not enjoy Montessori. However, I think it's also unfair to pigeon-hole children as being "too high energy" or "too free spirited" for Montessori, because I think that 99 out of 100 such kids will surprise you with their willingness to concentrate and do the tasks the way that they're designed. Montessori is all about respecting the child, and part of that respect takes personality into account.

Originally Posted by cxj

I raise this question because one of my freinds works at a Montessori and Reggio combined school.

I can't see that working, so I'm not surprised that it doesn't!

Originally Posted by cxj

Sorry that I might be off the topic a bit but Montessori work, though not limited to, does include academic work, right?

I don't think I can answer that without knowing what you mean by "academic work." I mean, what children learn in ANY preschool is meant to prepare them for school. Can you describe more what you mean? The kids aren't doing worksheets, if that's what you're talking about. They're stacking blocks in order from smallest to largest, in order to learn about proportion and shape. This is a toy you'll find in just about any daycare or preschool, and is certainly sold in any toy store. It may not take the shape of pink cubes (I have a Melissa and Doug one with animals on it, I also have plastic stacking cups from Ikea she plays with in the tub). It's so widespread because young children love playing with it. That's the kind of "work" that Montessori saw that children enjoy playing with, and also learn a great deal from. I doubt that you consider it "academic," but it's a toy that's an integral part of the Montessori classroom, so it certainly can be seen as such.

Originally Posted by cxj

When talking about preference of work and play, people always use Dr. Montessori's own observation example which was 100 years ago. I would love to hear some current researches or observations showing the same inclination in today's society. Most Montessori schools nowadays would not even allow these toys in the classrooms so all the choices the children in the classroom could make are among Montessori materials. It's interesting to see what the children would choose, if you put modern open-ended playing materials together with Montessori materials.

My guess is that they would choose a mixture. Many popular toys available are directly inspired by Montessori's designs. The stacking cups mentioned above, dressing dolls, puzzle maps, games and puzzles where you move letters around, tonal bells, guessing games where you guess smells or textures or sounds. Her idea that children enjoy doing activities with practical results can be seen in Easy Bake Ovens, many craft projects, toy cleaning sets.

Nothing will be perfect for every child, but when it does become time for you to look into preschools for your kids, I think you should take a peek into a Montessori classroom before you really make up your mind. If it's not for you and your kid, that's fine: there are plenty of other options. But I think you'll be surprised at how UN-"academic" it all is in practice, assuming you're using the word the way I think you are.

[2xy]

Originally Posted by cxj

Could anybody explain from Montessori perspectives why young children need to learn to write, read, mathematics before 6?

This is a modern phenomenon. Young children "need" to know how to read and write because of the typical classroom set-up. Kids need to be able to read their own directions and assignments, and be able to write responses (seeing as teachers certainly don't have time to do one-on-one oral interviews with each child in order to assess progress).

Other than that, there is no "need" to do these things at such a young age. I see a lot of mamas responded along the lines of "why stop children from doing what they love?" I might suggest that not all children love this sort of thing. I have one who was highly interested in academics by the age of 3-4, and one who couldn't have cared less and didn't learn to read until he was 7, and that was only because I refused to read comic books aloud to him (tedious).

Yes, children have a natural drive to work, but there are lots of different types of work and academia is just one of them. Kids learn best when the information/skill is relevant to their lives, IME.