Why do we introduce academics to children before 6? - Page 2

[lach]

Originally Posted by 2xy

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.

I don't think that anyone would agree with that more than M. Montessori That's basically what Montessori is all about.

[dogretro]

Originally Posted by GuildJenn

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.

People probably forget that there can be a difference between "fun" and "interesting". Just because something doesnt seem (or really isnt) "fun" does not mean that it is not plenty interesting and engaging!

[GuildJenn]

Originally Posted by 2xy

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).
...
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.

That's what we love about Montessori - the classroom has all different things to choose from and the kids choose the ones related to reading and writing when they are interested.

[MattBronsil]

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?

Since when is playing NOT considered learning? No matter which overall methodology you follow, nobody will say playing doesn't mean learning.

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?

If you're in a school that's obviously not a good match, then it's not a good idea to stay in it. It's only possible to really reply to this based on the methodology ideas since I cannot reply about why every single school may not be a good match for every single child.

As far as the methodology goes and what SHOULD happen (in my opinion), Montessori is about flexibility and meeting the needs of the child. It means that if someone is not thriving, something has to change in the environment to help that child thrive. So in THEORY, Montessori SHOULD work for every child.

In actual practice, it's impossible. The teachers are human just as the children are. It would be impossible for any teacher to know everything to do to make all the adjustments to meet all the needs of every single person that walks in the room. We also would have to take into consideration that we cannot give up on the needs of the child simply to make it convenient for us.

Since you're asking about a specific personality of the child, I should address it by saying I don't see how Montessori is NOT a perfect fit for a free spirited child. Maybe you can explain that idea more clearly as to why you think that. The only thing you've mentioned so far is the idea that children don't really learn anything when they play, which is something I disagree with fully.

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.

A combined Reggio and Montessori school cannot expect the same results as a Montessori school.

I like to swim. I like to play on the internet. If I opened a business where people could come and swim while surfing the internet, the computers would become a lot less useful and I might electrocute people in the pool. When you combine two COMPLETELY incompatible ideas, expect COMPLETELY different results from their pure and intended purposes.

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.

I'll add to your question....
...in a Montessori environment.

My own experience and memory from my childhood is all I can really draw on here, but I enjoyed a lot of the open endedness of the Montessori materials quite a bit. The students I have taught did as well.

[ollyoxenfree]

Originally Posted by 2xy

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.

Bolding mine.

I think pp have said similar things, including me. Certainly, I don't think anything has been posted that disagrees with your bolded statements. PP have also pointed out that Montessori provides for the whole child and those "different types of work" - and lots of play, too.

[thismama]

My kid, just turned 6 this weekend, is a reading and math geek. Some of them love it. We do public school, not Montessori but we used to joke how we couldn't send her to Waldorf coz all she does is read and watch tv. Some of them like learning these things early.

[anamama]

The children are learning about math and language conceptually in the 3-6 Montessori classroom. They are working on motor skills that help to strengthen the muscles they will use to hold a pencil, and this is considered a language work. Counting wooden spindles into a box is a math work, as is stone counting and placing a wooden tile with the number on it above the stones. These are simple, fun works. They are not doing flashcards or quizzes. They may or may not record their work on paper, depending on age and interest. It is enriching and engaging work that some children will do over and over again, some will do once. They choose.
Also, many Montessori 3-6 rooms have sand tables and water tables where the children may pour and scoop and measure. It is part of the practical life area.
My children are both in Montessori schools. We started out with Waldorf, which I respect for its beauty, but I feel really happy and at peace with Montessori. Our home is what some would call "Waldorfy", and we have a lot of imaginary play, family rhythm, etc here.
Explore, and find the right fit for you! You are asking good questions.

[mamadebug]

I also think one thing to consider is the individual Montessori school and that teachers interpretation of Montessori. If you do decide to start looking at schools, visit a few. Some put a lot more emphasis on the academic side of things. Some put a lot more emphasis on practical life, sensorial, gardening even.

[ADirrim]

There have been so many good responses already that I hesitate to add anything further, but I had a few thoughts:

1) I strongly agree with Anamama that part of the confusion might be that you are taking the idea of "work" and "academics" in a different sense than Montessori does. "Work" or even “academic work” (not a distinction Montessori would make) in a Montessori classroom does not mean solving math problems or doing a worksheet. Work in a Montessori classroom includes many things that other philosophies would refer to as play (using clay or playdo, coloring, making a snack, peeling carrots, painting, using building a tower). Montessori referred to these activities as work because she held them in esteem and wanted to underscore the importance of them. The guide uses this term with the children in a demonstration of respect (that the children are doing important activities in which they are constructing themselves).
So, I assume that what you are speaking of is pretend play. Montessori compares a child playing to an adult playing games (chess or bridge). She says, “These are pleasant occupations for hours of leisure, but they would become painful is we were obliged to pursue them at great length.” Like most people, she divides the day into work time and leisure time; most Montessori children engage in unstructured play time (both at recess and after school). Based upon her observations, she believed that children grow tired of unstructured play past a certain point and that much of a child’s pretend play is “not proof of imagination, rather it is proof of unsatisfied desires.”

My personal experience is that most children really enjoy the independent work time and that the materials really capture the interests of children. Additionally, I believe that she correctly identified sensitive periods where children really absorb information easily and that if you miss those windows, learning the same information later can be much more difficult (in general, it is much harder to teach a four or five year old their phonetic sounds than a three year old because they just aren’t as interested in doing it). That said, children have their choice of activities in the classroom. If a child really wasn't ready to do language or math works, a trained guide would identify that.

2)As to whether Montessori is "for" every child. I think it depends upon what you mean. I believe that as a method, all children can be successful and have a positive outcome in a Montessori classroom. If you mean, would every child be happiest in a Montessori classroom (as opposed to another type of classroom) or would any particular child be happy in a particular Montessori school- those questions are impossible to answer. I think Matt Bronsil answered that very well in saying that teachers and administrators are only human and may not connect with every person and meet every child’s needs perfectly. I think the method supplies the right framework and a good regulatory ideal, but people are not perfect. While this is a great place to inquire about the method or philosophy, it probably won't be very helpful in deciding where to send your child- for that you will want to visit schools in your community and inquire into how authentic the school is (Is there a three hour uninterrupted work period? Are all of the teachers AMI or AMS trained? Are there authentic Montessori materials present? Have lots of "enrichment" materials been added to the Montessori classroom?) and get a sense of how comfortable your child and your family feel in the environment. As you can tell from this site lots of people have had different experiences depending upon the actual school involved (I personally know of cases where a child has been unhappy in a specific Montessori school but was very happy in another). That said, in an empirical study in the Milwaukee public school system, children were admitted into an AMI affiliated public Montessori school by random lottery. They attended the school from age 3-11. The children who attended the Montessori school scored higher on standardized tests than the regular public school children and over half of the Montessori children were admitted into Milwaukee's top four high schools. Ostensibly, since it was a random sampling, there were children of all kinds enrolled (including spirited ones), and in terms of academic outcomes, the Montessori approach seemed preferable. In terms of creativity, the Miller and Dyer Head Start study compared children from similar populations in Montessori and non-Montessori Head Start programs and found that the Montessori children performed higher in standard tests of creativity and displayed more "pro-social" behaviors than non-Montessori children. My understanding is that similar testing has not been conducted in Waldorf and Reggio schools, so it is difficult to compare Montessori to those alternatives, but even empirically speaking (as opposed to philosophically) it seems that most children are successful in Montessori environments (and more successful in certain respects thank they would have been in other settings).

3) As to the observations of your friend, I agree whole heartedly with Matt Bronsil that one would expect different outcomes in a combined Montessori Reggio school. This could be attributable to the training or preferences of the teacher, the difference in the teacher’s role (where Montessori guides act as unobtrusive observers, Reggio teachers are more involved in offering children provocations), the social environment (children this age often want to observe and duplicate the efforts of their peers, so if one person is using the water table it wouldn’t be that surprising that others would follow suit), etc. One of the reasons that it is particularly difficult for me to imagine this combination working well is that the Montessori classroom provides children with freedom within an environment of limited choices. Montessori writes a lot about limiting the materials available to those things that are useful for the child's self development and the dangers of an over-abundance of activities to a child's concentration (she believed that having too many choices cause the child to engage in aimless activity). When considering her choice of material, she even tested the optimal quantities of classroom materials. Many researchers believe that the idea of freedom within the boundary of limited choices is one key reason for the success of her method. In Science Behind the Genius, Lillard provides numerous scientific studies showing that people (and children specifically) report being happier and more satisfied with their choices when they selected it from fewer options (and generally choose to do the activity more frequently, for a longer duration, and performed better at the task). A few months ago, Lillard wrote a great article based upon this information for Montessori Life reinforcing the warning that Montessori guides are given during their training to limit the amount of enrichment material in the classroom (and to wisely consider it’s necessity before introducing it). Additionally, Montessori materials are tools designed to serve specific purposes (they are not open ended as are Reggio materials)- there is a great deal of research (DeLoache) suggesting that when children play open endedly with objects they are unlikely to access the objects underlying conceptual and symbolic features. If children are encouraged to use Montessori materials in open ended pretend play, it may well have the consequence both of preventing the children from grasping the concept and reduce their enjoyment of it (one of the principle reasons young children in particular are drawn to Montessori materials is the precise use of them).

For a nice article contrasting the difference in Montessori and Reggio approaches, see:
http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n1/edwards.html

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

[Hokulele]

I know shockingly little about Montessori in other places, but I do know two things that support my decision to send DD to a Montessori preschool:

1. DD taught herself how to write her own name - at the age of two. We had no idea she could even grasp that concept, but one day DH and I were chatting away while she was drawing and she showed us her paper and that she'd written her name. She was clearly ready for someone to show her other opportunities in academic learning. BUT she is very much only interested in learning what she feels like learning, not what I think she might be ready to learn.

2. DD's Montessori preschool is in no way pushing her to do anything she doesn't find fun and/or play-based. There are some activities she has never done simply because she hasn't chosen to do them and/or her teacher hasn't thought she was ready. Everything they do appears to DD to be play - and she loves to learn. So for her this is really the best possible scenario.

If I had a child who didn't seem ready to enter the academic learning arena, I think I would still feel comfortable in a Montessori environment. At least in our school, the children choose their activities, so I could feel confident that the children are learning and playing at their own pace.

Again, I don't know how this plays out in other Montessori schools. We have been very lucky in that DD's teacher is calm, laid back and very in-tune to each child.

[cxj]

Thanks all again for your wonderful replies and suggestions. When time comes, I would definitely go around and look into Montessori schools to get my feeling and I understand that one school doesn’t represent one philosophy. No matter which education philosophy the school adopts, it always comes down to the executor - the particular teacher, how well she understands the philosophy, how she implements them into daily practice.

At present, while I am reading the books and the posts, these questions just came to my mind and I want to see how other people would look at them and answer them.

Originally Posted by 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

Hi, Sunshine, I'm glad to see your practice and observations. I think what Dr. Montessori did at the very beginning in her Children's house was the same as yours, some didactic apparatus with “some dolls, trucks, blocks and other open ended activities”. But afterwards she observed that gradually her children refused to play with those toys. From there she concluded that children would be interested in more important things (“work”) than trivial things (play with toys). As a result, she moved the toys away from the classroom.

From your description, it’s quite interesting that when both choices are available to the children, they would also choose the toys, just like Lach in her post said, "a mixture". For me, such reaction of children is more understandable. I don’t think the children would differentiate that this is didactic apparatus and that is toy, this is boring and that is fun. I can see Montessori apparatus are fantastic learning materials (indeed, many modern toys copied the ideas from her). Both types of material are something they can put their hands on to play/work with. For them, play is learning and learning is play. So I could understand that children would choose Montessori materials as well as toys. I totally agree with Lach's post as below,

Originally Posted by lach

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.

What is much harder for me to understand is Dr.Montessori’s observation that “when both choices are available”, children would only be interested in working than playing with toys. That’s why I’m asking if more similar observations have been done and reported within past century that could draw the same conclusion. I’m not saying that I don’t’ believe in what she observed, but I think I need more current examples to be totally convinced.

I’m interested to know your children’s reaction later on when they have more Montessori works to do. Would they totally abandon the toys just as Dr. Montessori described if you still leave the toys out?

[MattBronsil]

What is much harder for me to understand is Dr.Montessori’s observation that “when both choices are available”, children would only be interested in working than playing with toys.

Careful with that. It's not exactly true. What she noticed is that toys were played with for a little while, then shortly took a huge back seat to the materials.

That’s why I’m asking if more similar observations have been done and reported within past century that could draw the same conclusion. I’m not saying that I don’t’ believe in what she observed, but I think I need more current examples to be totally convinced.

Not a scientific study by any stretch of the imagination, but I know of many schools that put out familiar toys in the beginning of the year to get the children first coming in more of a transition if they need it. The toys are later left behind when they realize there's more fascinating stuff to do, at which point they are removed from the shelves.

I’m interested to know your children’s reaction later on when they have more Montessori works to do. Would they totally abandon the toys just as Dr. Montessori described if you still leave the toys out?

I'd GUESS they wouldn't totally abandon them, but they wouldn't get used much. Once a child begins to feel a sense of pride and accomplishment in what they are able to do at school, they begin to really look forward to the work. I can remember a few times when I was in 3-6 of being excited to get to school the next day so I could do a particular work. Two times I remember were when I really fell in love with the penny polishing activity and when my brother showed me the bead cabinet so I wanted to try it the next day.

Toys, to me, where a time when I was playing. I couldn't sit down and "focus" on a set of legos for 45 minutes, like I could with the materials. It was a totally different experience and I enjoyed both.

[lach]

Originally Posted by cxj

What is much harder for me to understand is Dr.Montessori’s observation that “when both choices are available”, children would only be interested in working than playing with toys. That’s why I’m asking if more similar observations have been done and reported within past century that could draw the same conclusion. I’m not saying that I don’t’ believe in what she observed, but I think I need more current examples to be totally convinced.

Well, I can tell you just in my own home that I've never said "Hey, pumpkin, can you help me by [doing something useful]" and had it been turned down, no matter what it is she's already doing or that I need: she takes great pride in throwing things away for me, fetching me things I need, sweeping with her little dustpan, helping me clean up, helping me cook, doing the laundry (I am not making this up: she is better at doing the laundry than I am in that I always forget to empty the lint trap and she never does, and she is more meticulous about sorting than I am and says "no mommy!" quite reproachfully when I'm doing it wrong). Kids enjoy doing practical, helpful things... and that is a core component of the Montessori experience.

Of course, if I tell her it's time for a nap, her dollhouse is suddenly the most fascinating thing in the universe.

As for whether other "similar observations have been reported in the past century," I would have to say that I doubt anyone would keep their child in a Montessori school if they didn't notice similar results.

I guess I'm not really sure what you're looking for? There exists very few studies about any early childhood curriculum, but more on Montessori than most. If you want studies, I recommend The Science Behind the Genius, which I haven't read but my understanding is that she looks at lots of actual studies. I don't know of any similar books about any other philosophies.

[SomedayMom]

If you are really interested in finding out what Montessori really is, the best thing you can do is observe at a great school. I was always drawn to the method, but I honestly didn't really know much about it at an intimate level. I am still learning as my boys progress with it.

My son spent 2 years in a good playbased preschool. We loved it. He was happy there.

But at 4.5 we moved. St. Louis has a great assortment of Montessori schools. I can think of 6 or 7 within 15 minutes of the school we chose, and many others. I decided to check them out with the intention of putting my boys in Montessori since I'd always been drawn to it, but it was never available before.

If I thought my boys were happy before...THIS is 100x better. My son gets up every day excited to go to school. He hops out of the car and waves goodbye. You know he was in that other school for 2 years of preschool and he still clung to me at dropoff, even if he did enjoy his days. He wasn't this excited to go there. Is he learning more even faster now? Absolutely. But you know what, he loves it. He is excited about it. He is proud of all of his work. He can't wait to pull it out of his bag and tell me about it. It's just different.

He learned a lot in playbased school and it was great, but to see him this happy just proves to me that my belief in the Montessori method was well grounded and that my choice of schools was the right one.

FWIW, my 2 year old is in their toddler program 3 mornings a week. I always worked part time and he would have fun at childcare, but he cried every day there too. Now, he goes to his teacher with a hug and waves goodbye. He walks out every day with something he worked on and tries to tell me all about it the best way a 2 year old can. He is much happier too. His room actually still has a few toys in it...the wooden train set and farm house come to mind. But while observing there, I've only ever seen one child play with either. And he moved on to a different work after about 10 minutes.

I don't have any scientific evidence of why Montessori still works in today's world. I just have my children. And that is proof enough for me.

[ADirrim]

My observations are hardly as scientific as Montessori's (she was way ahead of her time in terms of rigorously applying the scientific method to her observations, in my opinion), but ancedotally I can say that I worked as an assistant in a classroom that had a lot of non-Montessori "enrichment" materials. Among those materials included a set of parquet/mosaic tiles (stored in a large basket) and a set of small maple "beginner blocks" from Barclay toys (also stored in a large basket). These items sat on the Sensorial shelf (alongside equipment like the Pink Tower). I can honestly say that I never, ever, saw a single child (no joke) select the maple blocks. I did see children select the parquet blocks. Although they were intended to be a link to home work (many classrooms, as someone else noted, include "toys" at the beginning of the year so there are objects more familiar to the children as they are transitioning into the classroom), they were almost exclusively used by older children, who used them in groups to make designs, in the beginning or at the end of the work cycle. Amusingly enough, I still have the parquet blocks available in my current classroom and in the past three months of school, they have been used precisely one time (by a 2 1/2 year old child who chose to use them as if they were a sorting work- sorting them by attribute and proudly stating to his friends "These are yellow hexagons"). By contrast, the Pink Tower was practically always in use. The children always had the choice of all of the aforementioned materials.

I saw similar results with other "enrichment" materials during my time as an assistant- a plastic Barbie type doll (the idea was that children could brush her hair and decorate it with barrettes- a pracitcal life extension) and the farm (this is normally a Montessori language lesson with a precise use, but in this classroom it was left out at a large classroom table for children to "play" with and the parts of speech lessons normally used with them were not left out). Although both afforded obvious opportunities for unstructured, pretend play, with familiar "toys," neither were popular works. Children appeared to take them out occasionally, get bored with them rather quickly, and move on (these are my biased impressions by the way- I didn't time how long they used them).

There could be many reasons for the difference in use- the way they were stored (the other blocks were jumbled in a basket, whereas the Pink Tower is always neatly displayed), there were so many components in the blocks (whereas there are only ten cubes in the tower), the precise use of the Pink Tower (as opposed to the open-endedness of the other materials), the color (the natural wood of the Maple blocks, etc). I think it is amazing when you read Montessori's works that she systematically considered all of these factors- the effects of color, quantity, and the method of displaying the materials and empirically tested them when she designed her works.

Additionally, I agree that there might be differences with some populations of modern children. I would have to look up the references for these quotes, but upon her first visit to America, Montessori wrote about the differences she noticed in children in wealthy environments (she referred to them as "pampered") and in more impoverished settings. She observed that having an excess (of playthings, of unnecessary assistance, etc) had negative effects on their independence and concentration (they would fight over the materials and abandon them very quickly). She also observed that it slightly altered the way the children "played" (this is something parents ask about a lot in terms of children's bedrooms- why they don't put away toys at home), and that it took longer for those children to adapt to the Montessori environment, or "normalize". She found that for these children it was even more important to find one material that really polarized their attention, and that doing so seemed to really calm them and assist them in engaging in other purposeful work. Obviously, toys (and the quantity most children have) have gotten more excessive over time (with better advertising and cheaper manufacturing options), and she hadn't even encountered the tv and video game generation. So I am sure that there might be some differences in modern children. That said, my entire Montessori career has been spent working with an affluent population and the children both enjoy and benefit from the Montessori materials and environment (perhaps even more so).

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