? about Montessori insistence on "real" things

[moms222]

for children. Don't get me wrong, I know my older ds only wanted "real" phones and "real" keys, and "real" scissors, etc,. However, I was just reading Montessori from the Start at the library, and they believe that everything giving to the child must be real. Reading fantasy stories or playing pretend, etc,. is useless to the child b/c it doesn't teach them how to approach and deal with the real world. Useless is the word they used.

Where does this leave fantasy, fairy tales, dramatic play, etc,. The book said that if the children are taught real skills with real tools that imagination would follow. I don't see how, if they only learn to use something one way, and aren't supposed to pretend. How can they learn to be creative when everything must be "real"?:

TIA,
moms222

[smeep]

I've never heard of this. The Montessori schools I went to never seemed to put this in play, I often played Treasure Trolls or House during play time. I don't like that thought. Yes, things should be real to an extent, but come on! Let them have some imagination, that's how we come up with new inventions!

[Flor]

Originally Posted by smeep

I've never heard of this. The Montessori schools I went to never seemed to put this in play, I often played Treasure Trolls or House during play time. I don't like that thought. Yes, things should be real to an extent, but come on! Let them have some imagination, that's how we come up with new inventions!

My son's Montessori classroom has no "toys" like trolls, dolls, cars, etc. They have freetime on the playground, but no "free play" time in the classroom. They are always free to do what they want, but they use the materials correctly. Maria Montessori said she stocked her classrooms with toys at first, but when the children had the oppurtunity to play with real things, they never played with the toys. Ie. they would rather really make tea than have a fake tea party. They would like to really wash clothes rather then play with a plastic toy washing machine. I agree with all that. However, my son is REALLY into monster trucks. He's 3. He can't really drive a monster truck. I think he gets enough play at home that I'm not concerned about the focus on realism in the classroom. He loves his school and finds enough to fill his days without toys, so that's ok with me.

[Drummer's Wife]

Here's an interesting article on reality/fantasy in Montessori. My understanding is that it is not discouraged but not encouraged until 6+ years of age. From what I learned in my 0-3 Montessori training and years working with and observing young children her theories make a lot of sense. The article doesn't exactly get into real objects versus toys so much but it is still great info.

[moms222]

I guess what's confusing me is that

both Waldorf and Montessori make good arguments for their way of education, and I just can't decide which one I agree with. For instance, Waldorf (paraphrasing Oak Meadow) believes that young children should be surrounded by fairy tales and an archetypical view of the world. This way they can hear about morals, conflicts, etc,. in a broad manner and see how they're resolved and absorb that.

However, Montessori seems to take an entirely different tack. They say that children are essentially concrete thinkers and sensorial explorers. It is imperative for them to focus on real work, chores, items, etc,. as a way of finding their way in the world. Fantasy keeps them immature, and reality keeps them grounded. For instance, Da Vinci looked at real birds before coming up with the early helicopter and studied people and animals in science before drawing.

AAAAGGGGGHHHHH! : I'm so confused. Can anyone help me figure out which direction to go before I spin myself into the ground turning from one to the other?!

Thanks,
moms222

[Flor]

Well, you are posting in the Montessori forum, so we might be bit biased. .

[Lillianna]

When I was originally introduced to Dr. M's concept of providing an environment with an emphasis on real activities and reality based stories, etc. I have to admit I felt relieved. I felt that finally there is someone saying that we can offer more suitable topics to our children than what is popularly held as a "norm" and that are basically cultural mores and subjective rather than objective practices. There is so much worthless, uninteresting and unintelligent babble presented to children. For Montessori, not only are the children making choices, there are alot of choices for the adult to make as far as what is offered to the child. (Hence, your dilemna, OP!) I was not surprised at all that M discovered children actually prefer to be involved in real activities and with real subject matter. She identified that acculturation or adaptation to the environment is a necessary stage of human development that occurs in the first six years, that is guided by a biological system. These "sensitive periods" are critical times for acquiring adaptations. Language, movement, refinement of the senses, social relations: these are the child's work. So, it became imperative for Montessori to consistently offer the child the best of what our culture has to offer in these areas, and to weed out "obstacles to development" such as items that are not being used or do not direct him to purposeful activity. What remains are orderly, simple and coordinated activities that the child can make use of in response to a purpose that is coming from within. It is this inner motivation and personal experience with learning that Montessori seeks. A direct connection to experential existence, living in the here and now. When you are offering many other activities with much more substance, the child doesn't miss "playing make believe". He is an actor acting in a real scene - living in the here and now. Interacting with reality. By playing house, construction, train, school, etc. the child is expressing a real need to make sense of and be active in his environment. While other 4yo girls run around with groovy girls, strawberry shortcake, etc. (mainstream culture), my dd has a bird guide that she took with her to a friend's house today. I know I would have loved this experience when I was young. To have been offered real knowledge and experience with developing real capabilities and therefore, more self confidence. It would have been great if learning about real things was actually a choice or a possibility at this stage. It is a period of great potential and unlimited ability to absorb knowledge that the child will not know again. I had some freightening experiences with cartoons and "fantasy" imagery and also self-confidence issues, in many ways thanks to the traditional schooling I received. Anyway, I have never had a child ask me where the doll house or the train set was in 10 years of working in the Casa. It is an interesting topic to be sure. M did come to conclude that "toy" (objects with no inherent purpose) and fantasy items were not necessary for this age group, you will not see them included in the majority of Casa where the Directress is trained from AMI.
By the way, the way OP divided M and Waldorf in the PP is true for the 0-6 ages but Montessori does advocate and present more "imaginative" lessons (fairy tales, fantasy and myths) for the elementary ages. The approach is to give the child a firm foundation or grounding in reality until about age 6, then to utilize the natural shift in perception and attraction to imagination for the elementary years. The "Great Stories" include "little plant people" that deliver the nutrients that plants need for growth. I can give you some references from Dr. M if you are interested in learning more about her appoach for elem. years...Let me know which books you have.

The book said that if the children are taught real skills with real tools that imagination would follow.

Compare this to a sculpture. Before a true artist could create anything he would have to know the basics of the craft: how the clay works, how to build structures, how to scupt, how to fire, etc. There are many years that go into preparing for creative endeavors that occur in preparation of the actual artwork. The artist acquires skills separately and perfects them and then combines them to express his own unique perceptions. Montessori approaches art in this manner, and actually every subject area. Each skill is broken down into components and are presented as separate lessons, then perfected through repetition. The child combines skills in an expression of personal achievement and of attaining a new level in capability. This gives the child the opportunity to imagine new combinations and creations.

[flyingspaghettimama]

Aaaah...I think people know where I stand on this already. I think Waldorf and Montessori are both correct, in a sense. My daughter loves her books about specific "academic" topics (in the past - space, sea; currently dogs), but she also loves her a good unicorn book or groovy girls (who have been known to go on an undersea adventure or two). I think there is a balance to be reached, and it's just what you feel comfortable with offering at home. I wish there were a perfect school that didn't try to repress either aspect of a child's internal drive - to either create and fantasize OR to explore and learn.

Ok, I have a general question for one of our specialists - so, the child is supposed to be ready for fantasy at age 6, but what if they were precocious in this aspect? Could this be possible, and how could a M classroom accomodate this? PM me if you want me to explain more. I was thinking that perhaps this was why we had a disconnect with her last few schools, despite the materials seeming wonderful and her teachers being fairly good.

[3girlmom]

You don't have to choose between Montessori and Waldorf - I mean, I guess you do as a school, but not as a lifestyle necessarily. A lot of the parents at our Montessori school feel that Waldorf-type things at home provide a great balance to the Montessori training our children get during the day. My child thrives in Montessori, but I have found for me that the books about Waldorf education speak a lot more to the kind of parent I want to be.

There isn't a bad choice to be made - more a matter of taking what you can get from each method. Good luck!

[Lillianna]

Originally Posted by flyingspaghettimama

so, the child is supposed to be ready for fantasy at age 6, but what if they were precocious in this aspect? Could this be possible, and how could a M classroom accomodate this? PM me if you want me to explain more. I was thinking that perhaps this was why we had a disconnect with her last few schools, despite the materials seeming wonderful and her teachers being fairly good.

If a child is "misusing a material" the first possibility is that she is experimenting/exploring and working at discovering the purpose. As long is she is not damaging it and not disturbing others, the Directress does nothing but observe in this instance.
It is possible that the material was not sufficiently challenging or age-appropriate or alternately that the child had not been prepared sufficiently through indirect means. This should be addressed by presenting age-appropriate lessons in response to the child's display of interest.
The 3rd year has many, many lessons for small groups and the child becomes much more social than in the first 2 years. The environment provides for this need. When did she switch schools? Did they say she was too into fantasy? Was she disturbing others at work? Maybe she was overcompensating for not knowing the other children and just trying to be extra friendly. 3rd year can be a difficult time (socially) to switch classes.
In any case, it's the Directress' responsibility to present lessons that the child will respond to. If the child is not engaged it is the Directress' fault, not the child's.

From my point of view, the title of this thread using the words "insistence on real things" and what FSM said about M 'repressing the internal drive to create and fantasize' make connotations that illustrate a misconception about the adult's role in Montessori. There is an entire chapter in the Absorbent Mind called "Mistakes and their Correction". "The teacher's task will be described in another chapter, but there is one thing she must never do and that is, to interfere by praising a child's work, or punishing him if it is wrong, or even by correcting his mistakes. This may sound absurd and many people find it a stumbling block." She goes on (and on) about protecting the child's inner motivation and having a friendly attitutude towards mistakes. "The art" of being a Directress of a Children's House lies in letting observation guide presentations, letting materials that are self-correcting work and giving the child freedom to make mistakes. In other words, the Directress is not supposed to go around telling children not to "play" with the materials, she does not insist or repress. There are strategies for re-presenting and accentuating the purpose of the materials (points of consciousness) but the child should not feel reprimanded. Above all, the child should feel comfortable and safe (physically as well as emotionally) in the Casa.
She writes about how we must not only allow for mistakes from the child, but from the adults as well. It is possible that the Directress had had a bad day, had circumstantial misunderstandings with your daughter, and also that she is still perfecting "the art" of Directing the Casa.
I should also explain that Normalization (psychological well being) is the main goal of the Children's House, and "attachment to reality" is seen as a clear indicator of the child's place on this path. In the extreme case of total abandonment or (the other extreme) heavy restrictions, the child manifests psychological deviations that include Fugues (flight from reality) and Barriers (withdrawal into self). These are serious mental displacements that Montessori believed could be cured through "true work". Playing house with a few random objects does not consistitute a Fugue, though I will concede that some Directresses are overconcerned with the child using the materials correctly and end up correcting the child, when their true work should be to guide the child towards choosing purposeful work at a neutral moment.

"It is easier to let the child be superficially involved with fantasy games or to play by himself with toys than to prepare an activity that involves some kind of attention to detail."

[OnTheBrink]

I hear the creativity question a lot! In fact, I used to ask it a lot!

The best explanation was this:
Showing the children how to properly use an item makes sense in the same way that piano lessons make sense. In piano lessons, we learn the basics - counting, notes, etc. Once we master that, we can get a bit more creative, do our own thing, create our own masterpieces.

Sure, there are musicians who never had formal training and are amazing. But the reality is that is not true of most of us. Most of us need someone to explain the basics, give us some building blocks, guide us while we master that, and then set us free to do even more!

This Montessori structure seems to be mostly true in the youngest ages. I see the older children doing all kinds of amazing things with the different materials. But it only works for them because they understand the basics.

[RomanGoddess]

I have to say re the reality/fantasy debate, we have followed the Montessori line of thinking with our baby/toddler up until now and I think that it has worked so well for our daughter. For example, we have tried to emphasize books with real photos or realistic illustrations in them, mostly books with just a photo of an object on each page and she points to it and we talk about it. We are just now starting with simple stories but we focus on realistic stories to which she can relate - stories about other children and how they are spending their day for example. The result: My daughter has never heard of Winnie the Pooh or Mickey Mouse or any other fantasy character. BUT she knows a lot about the real world and I can attest that it amazes her just as much. Why look at Winnie the Pooh when you can look at a picture of a real polar bear in the arctic?

Keep in mind, as well, that many character books were actually intended for older children. The House at Pooh Corner was written for children around the age of 7 or 8 years of age or older. It was Disney who decided to expand its market by dumbing the character of Winnie the Pooh down to make it appropriate for infants. Even Enid Blyton's books about Noddy in Toyland were intended for children older than 2 or 3. It was her publisher who decided to make the baby books, etc.

In terms of fake things, I cannot understand why anyone would think that playing with a fake plastic stove would be anywhere near as interesting as working in a real kitchen. My 2-year old practises spreading soft butter with a real knife (I found a child-sized one that won't cut her but that works), stirring things on the stove (under close supervision), sorting foods into different bowls, placing the apple slices on the apple pie, peeling her hard-boiled egg (thanks, Lillian!). She has always been given REAL baby-sized cutlery to eat with (would YOU be able to eat well with one of those thick plastic baby forks??).

And consider this. Would your toddler prefer to play with the plastic toy telephone or the real telephone? My toddler has been given two fake telepohones as gifts and between those and our real telephone, I can tell you that she absolutely knows which is the real one and she will always prefer to play with the real one (unfortunately for us - she has made a few long distance calls inadvertently ). Sometimes I even tell her, "No. That is Mommy and Dad's phone. You have to play with your phone". She has no interest in switching over to the fake one.

[moms222]

I'm definitely not against "reality-based" materials

it's just that all the research I've done about young children and brain development states unequivocally that children learn a great deal through fantasy play. I'm not talking about Mickey Mouse, Elmo, Winnie the Pooh type fantasy, but dress up, kitchen play, talking on the telephone, block tower building/pretending it's dr/police/NASCAR building and on and on. I firmly believe in real activities such as counting games, learning to zip/tie/button, pouring water, using scissors that actually cut, you get the idea.

However, I think it's also ok to make gnomes out of felt, or unicorns out of clay. All the talk about how "children who escape into fantasy are not normalized" really bugs me. Don't all children pretend/play act? It's supposed to be good to encourage creative thinking. That doesn't have to mean that they aren't given concrete tools to work with also, does it?

That's all I was trying to say in my OP. The two big reasons this is such a big deal to me are: I am looking into hsing younger ds, and I need to know whether I actually agree with Montessori, and a public university near me is looking to start offering a Montessori Infant/Toddler emphasis certification in the fall. I really need to know how my ideas about children, education, brain/creativity development, etc,. fit into Montessori before shelling out hte bucks.

Thanks for all the replies,
moms222

[Drummer's Wife]

moms222 I know my mom agrees with you and would probably choose waldorf over montessori if it were her choice. She's so funny cause she gets so excited when my kids do use their imagination/fantasy/role play etc like it's something they are deprived of. Not at all. They love to play dolls, cars, tell and write fairy tale like stories, play store, restaraunt, turn the mattress into a giant ship and sail out in the water, etc, etc, etc.

And like I said before I agree in MM theories especially during the first 6 yrs of life but children choose their own play when they have the free time. And if you do decide on a montessori program for your children they will still have plenty of time at home to explore these other areas of their development. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. A lot of parents love many aspects of montessori and see how their children benefit during the school day but may choose to have fairy tale books on the shelf at home and so on. There can be a balance if you don't want to go 100% in one direction so to speak.

[Lillianna]

Originally Posted by moms222

it's just that all the research I've done about young children and brain development states unequivocally that children learn a great deal through fantasy play.

A great resource on this is Angeline Lillard's The Science Behind the Genius, if you are interested in Montessori's views on this topic, that is. She explains how the Montessori environment provides activities that are designed to be used the same way a child engages in fantasy play (no time limits, choice of participation, choice of topic, choice of location, etc). While engaging in "fantasy play" a child is making decisions, defining outcomes, setting up scenarios. What we see as a need for "fantasy play" is really a need for a similar self-directed activity.

All the talk about how "children who escape into fantasy are not normalized" really bugs me. Don't all children pretend/play act? It's supposed to be good to encourage creative thinking. That doesn't have to mean that they aren't given concrete tools to work with also, does it?

I mistakenly thought that you were asking about how Montessori as well as Mamas who agree with Montessori feel about the issue. I have read (Monessori's Own Handbook) that she came to view all fantasy (non real) information given to the child as an obstacle in his development in the first stage of development (from birth to about age 6). I have also experienced the transformation of certain children in the Casa, children who dwell only in fantasy at home (one extreme), are "hard to manage" (according to parent), lots of tantrums, etc.
Many (if not most) parents in our class follow this method at home as well. The children participate in the home life, their activities are purposeful, their stories, books and music are about real events, animals and objects. (much like cmlp) The children are joyful, inquisitive, nice to be around, and thoughtful about their actions.

Making gnomes out of felt or unicorns out of clay sounds more like a 7 or 8 year old activity. A preschooler might be able to put this all together, but the adult would be doing most of the activity. Montessori created activities that a young child can do completely independently from start to finish.

[RomanGoddess]

I'm not talking about Mickey Mouse, Elmo, Winnie the Pooh type fantasy, but dress up, kitchen play, talking on the telephone, block tower building/pretending it's dr/police/NASCAR building

I would not say that the Montessori mothod is against any of these things. The emphasis on Montessori, though, is giving children a chance to DO all those things you listed for pretend. For example:

- You listed kitchen play. I know of a Montessori school where every day, two 4-year old children bake real bread on their own in a real, child-sized kitchen. Isn't that much better than a pretend kitchen where nothing really works??

- talking on the telephone. Sure but as I said in my previous post, my little girl knows very well that her phones are fake and always wants to "talk" on our phones. She looks at me like I am insulting her when I tell her that she cannot play on with our telephone and that she must use her fake one.

- Block tower building is THE QUINTESSENTIAL MONTESSORI ACTIVITY! Haven't you even heard of the pink tower???? And or course regular blocks are great. Who said that Montessori was against this???

- Playing doctor. Sure. But why not get a REAL stethoscope for your child (like they have at our local children's museum) and let your child play doctor with that, so she can understand what the doctor is doing and how the instrument works? Trust me, as between a real and a fake stethoscope, children prefer trying out the real one.

Re Montessori vs. waldorf, I read somewhere that the methods are the mirror image of one another and I think that this is accurate.

[Grania]

I worked at 2 different M schools as a teacher's aide and it bothered me to watch children being redirected to other activities because they were exploring other uses for the materials, instead of using them in the "propper way". I believe that experimentation with different combinations of materials, or putting things together in new ways, can lead to better creative problem solving skills later.

I'm not saying I dissagree with everything they did at the M schools. I liked the "life skills" centers. I though those skills were very useful.

I think there needs to be a happy medium between the reality and fantacy teachings. I think fairy tales are an important part of culture. I wanted my children to know the most famous of these because they are part of being "culturally literate".

[RomanGoddess]

Originally Posted by Grania

I wanted my children to know the most famous of these because they are part of being "culturally literate".

This is absolutely true. My parents told me fairy tales when I was 5.5 -6 years old and beyond. Why does it have to be before???

And the vast majority of fairy tale books, including the classic Grimms, are written in a style and vocabularythat is intended for a child of at least 5 years of age.

Dr. Montessori never said that fantasy should be banned altogether. She said (and I paraphrase here) that when children are very young, they are very keen to learn about their world around them. Why would we want to deter them from that.

Also, I think that it is important to define fantasy. I don't consider playing doctor fantasy. I consider that to be imitation of something in the real world. While there would not be a play "doctor's office" in a traditional Montessori school, I don't think that Dr. Montessori thought that this kind of pretend play was a bad thing at all (professionals can correct me here?).

This is different from, say, Mickey Mouse, Winnie the Pooh, or stories about fairies and elves, all of which some adult has just made up to appeal to children. The latter is true fantasy. True fantasy is generally downplayed in Montessori schools for smaller children and thought to be more appropriate for children aged 6 and up.

[Terabith]

I'm all about real things - using real kitchen appliances, keys, phones, scissors, hammers, etc. I think when there is a choice, real is almost always best. However, there are things where "real" options aren't really available or appropriate - like trucks. A child cannot drive a truck. My 2.5 year old loves to cook in our kitchen - spreading peanut butter, stirring, cracking eggs, etc. However, she cannot a) do this without total supervision b) all day (only so much food we can eat, lol). I think the toy kitchen provides another venue where she can re-enact the entire process independently, in a way that at this point in her development, I am not prepared to let her do on her own. (And I admit that this may be a failing of mine as a Montessori parent.) She can be more independent in her toy kitchen than in the real one. So I think they complement each other well.

She loves to play with dinosaurs. Now, I thought at first that this was a great opportunity to teach her real things about dinosaurs. We name them with their real names, read books, etc. But that does not seem to be the need that the toy dinosaurs are meeting for her. When she plays with the dinosaurs, she plays these elaborate "family" games. She has mother, daddy, and baby dinosaurs, and she role plays family dramas with them, especially taking care of the baby. This is a real, ongoing theme for her that she seems to have an inner need to work through psychologically (baby, parent, parent taking care of baby, etc). In a similar vein, my 17 month old loves to play with dolls. She takes great care of them - feeding, diaper changing, rocking, etc. This seems to be real "work" for her, but I am not going to leave her in charge of a real baby! Both of my kids seem to be fulfilled when they do this kind of nurturing/ playing out dramatic episodes from daily life play and seem more normalized afterwards.

Grocery shopping and doctor play are other dramatic play that seems to work well in a dramatic rather than real way. We do have a real stethoscope as well as a pretend one. Oddly, my kids prefer the play one, because the "real" one seems to be too tight on ears for comfort. And my kiddos love the otoscope and shot syringes - obviously they can't really give shots (and even if I could let them really give shots, shouldn't let them give shots as often as they like to!). The dr play is really big for them and seems to have many psychological benefits too. Obviously, learning about real drs is good, and we do that, but I think they would be limited if they couldn't be "sick" and actually use the equipment but rather just named it, etc. (My 17 month old has set up a dr's office in the dining room, with pillows, blankets, and the medical kit. It's quite elaborate.) And I can't afford a real cash register. Anna likes to pretend to grocery shop and check out with toy cash register.

They like to dress up as pirates, too. I'm not super keen on real learning about pirates at their ages, but the play silks are fun for them to dress up in and say "Argg!" They have a pretend fishing rods and fish and love to "fish." We don't have the water to allow them to really fish for real regularly.

Anna likes to hammer, but I'm leery of real hammering at this point bc of the 17 month old. She does like her pretend hammering bench. This is part of the reason Anna is at a Montessori school; I can't provide her safely with the materials that she can use. We do have many things like brooms, small cooking experiences, puzzles, bead stringing, shape sorters, mops, etc to try and do as much "real" experiences as possible. (And of course art materials, a slide and balls, etc). So I'm conflicted; I do think real things are important, but I also think pretend play equipment has a place.

In terms of books, we read a lot of books of nonfiction and pictures of real things that we talk about. We also read a lot of simple books about children (Blueberries for Sal, etc). But we do read many fictional books (Sylvester and the Magic Pebble, Make Way for Ducklings, Goldilocks and the Three Bears, Courduroy, Frog and Toad, etc). I agree that books like Winnie the Pooh were intended for seven yr olds plus. And I think most fairy tales are for older kids; even the Waldorf folks do most fairy tales around age six to seven. I do think folk tales and other fictional books have an important place for preschoolers. I could be wrong about this, however; it's just the choice I've made for our family (we will have Sylvester and Frog and Toad but not Cinderella, yes to Goldilocks but no to Snow White).

What I want to know is why there aren't schools that combine the "best of both?" Why aren't there Montessori schools that have 3 hr work periods and some outside play in the morning and then after lunch/ rest time, have a Waldorf/ Reggio Emilio/ arts inspired best developmentally appropriate play oriented school program? With some teacher directed discussions, art, music, motor skills, dramatic play time/ blocks, more outside time, etc? I've seen Montessori schools with day care in the afternoons, but the day care providers tend to be kinda mediocre and not a real program. I'd like to see one with really high quality teachers of two different philosophies working together to provide programs that complement one another during the day.

[ochoco]

Originally Posted by Terabith

.

What I want to know is why there aren't schools that combine the "best of both?" Why aren't there Montessori schools that have 3 hr work periods and some outside play in the morning and then after lunch/ rest time, have a Waldorf/ Reggio Emilio/ arts inspired best developmentally appropriate play oriented school program? With some teacher directed discussions, art, music, motor skills, dramatic play time/ blocks, more outside time, etc? I've seen Montessori schools with day care in the afternoons, but the day care providers tend to be kinda mediocre and not a real program. I'd like to see one with really high quality teachers of two different philosophies working together to provide programs that complement one another during the day.

Well, I think the philosophies are so different you'd have trouble getting people to agree to this - heck, you'd prob. have trouble getting AMS- and AMI-trained people to work in one classroom. The "teacher directed" thing goes against M. philosophy in a very deep way. Art and music should be an integrated part of the M. classroom already. Motor skills should be an integrated part, too - that's what all those real works encourage. I do know of a teacher who encourages the older children to do handwork in the afternoon, though, sort of to calm and center after the lunch/outside time. Dramatic play in the afternoons could be a neat thing, and I can't think of any reason why not. It might be kind of TV-inspired, though (that's what I notice on the playground), but who knows. It'd be interesting to hear what others think.

I do think a misconception is that Montessori forces children to be dull and serious - if you see a well-run classroom, you can tell that the children are really interested and excited about what they're doing. Adults often think that children should be interested in gnomes and fairies and stuff, and I don't think that's a necessity, especially at such a young age. I do agree that folktales are an important part of our culture, and I don't think it harms them to hear them at home. I don't think they belong in the M. classroom, though - I feel like the children need a space where everything is real, everything is truthful and can be trusted.

ETA:
About redirecting children who aren't using the materials 'properly' - to me it depends on what they were doing. One thing about the M. class is that the materials need to be treated with respect, so that they remain beautiful and useful for everybody. For instance, if we had a beautiful, precious vase, I wouldn't be OK with my child taking it outside and throwing it around. I'd give him a ball to throw instead. Those beautiful Sensorial materials aren't meant to be used as dominoes or hammers or whatever - to use them like that wouldn't be right, you know? If the child wants to bang stuff together, show him the drum, or the hammering, or give him some clay or even bread dough - but not the Brown Stair! If the child is pretending that the material is a gnome or whatever, to me that shows that the child is bored, and I need to help him find something that will truly interest him.