pretend play in Montessori?

Quote:
Practically speaking, the advice I would give you is pretty pedestrian: If you go to thirty different "Montessori" schools, you will get thirty different answers to this question (honestly!); if it is a serious concern for you (that your son might not be getting enough of an opportunity to exercise his spontaneity), I would recommend asking the prospective teachers (when you consider re-enrollment) about his/her philosophy and how situations (like the one you mentioned) will be handled. (Personally, I would be comfortable with the use you describe so long as the child was being respectful with the material, was not putting it in their mouth, and was not distracting other children who were working, but I would be cognizant of the fact that the child was not really engaged/concentrating deeply with the work. That would indicate that the work was not a good match for that particular child. Based upon the fact that he was pretending the Brown Stair was a musical instrument, I might seize the opportunity to present/re-present a work with the bells instead).

In general, most schools seem to take that approach that:
a) most kids get plenty of opportunity for pretend play elsewhere (including home, recess, and possibly before/after care situations)- particularly in half day programs (or 2 days a week) the idea that the child is doing "work" (which, in this case, is really just a different kind of playing) during those times, really isn't precluding lots of other opportunities for different experiences
b) a lot of "imaginative play" isn't really the child's imagination anyway- it's toys, stories, or programs "imagined" by adults, usually with commercial motives
c) while Montessori schools do not encourage fantasy, they usually permit it (ie- the fantasy is created/directed by the child not by the adult- vs. waldorf)
d) the didactic materials are designed to be use in a precise way to teach specific concepts (some classrooms also have unstructured materials- paint, playdo, sand/water tables, etc without precise uses); if a child is using these materials as props for imaginary play, they probably are not accessing the cognitive concepts taught by them (if they are pretending to play music with the brown stair, they are no longer involved in the experience of understanding thick/thin; if they are pretending ten bars are snakes they are no longer focused on a decimal work, etc). There is a lot of cognitive research to support this (as well as research in the areas of flow states or Zen/ mindfulness). Depending upon the classroom, this may or may not be tolerated, but it would always be considered as an indication that the material is a bad match (too advnaced- the child is frustrated, too easy- the child is bored, or does not appeal to the maturational needs of the child)

Theoretically speaking, your question amused me because Montessori has already answered it explicitly (see, children really were not so different 100 years ago). I'm pretty sure her advice to you would be to get him an instrument. She writes: "And yet, I was once seriously asked by someone if it would be injurious to give a child a piano, when I suggested this course of action for a child who was continually practicing with his fingers upon the table, as if he were playing a piano. "And why should this be injurious?" I asked. "Because if I do so, he will learn music, it is true, but his imagination will no longer be exercised, and I don't know which would be best for him."
Who has not seen a child riding upon and whipping his father's walking stick as if it were a real horse... But if we observe rich children, who own quiet ponies and drive out habitually in carriages and motor cars, we shall see that they look in contempt at the child who is running about whipping a stick in great excitement....this is not proof of imagination, it is a proof of an unsatisfied desire; it is not an activity bound up with nature; it is a manifestation of conscious, sensitive poverty."

I think it is typical of Montessori programs to see teachers tightly controlling the use of materials, although from everything I have read, Montessori wouldn't have responded in that way.

Imagination and pretend play aren't built into the philosophy, especially at that age. There are developmental reasons for that (from a Montessori perspective) - that children that age love to be engaged in "real" work and things and if given the choice, they will usually choose "real" work over pretend stuff. Also, children that age usually do not have the difference between real and fantasy cemented in their minds, and that it is important for the adults to support the children as that develops by not presenting pretend things as real. All that said, if the children come up with the fantasy or imagination play, it is fine to let them engage in it. It shouldn't be generated by the adults, though.

Finally, I say this all the time - Montessori isn't trademarked. Anyone can open a Montessori school. How they apply the philosophy varies greatly.

[and whipping his father's walking stick as if it were a real horse... But if we observe rich children, who own quiet ponies and drive out habitually in carriages and motor cars, we shall see that they look in contempt at the child who is running about whipping a stick in great excitement....this is not proof of imagination, it is a proof of an unsatisfied desire; it is not an activity bound up with nature; it is a manifestation of conscious, sensitive poverty."[/QUOTE]

Hi- first of all, this is my first ever post to MDC, altho I've been a long term lurker. My dd will start Kindergarten this year and I am deeply investigating montessori and waldorf schools (I almost said "vs."). I too am trying to understand the place of imagination in montessori. I understand it fully in Waldorf (have been in Waldorf from infant through preschool) and am starting to think at this point my very bright child may actually thrive with less imaginative play- she is hungry to read and is very task oriented. Can anyone maybe elaborate on the quote above? Is the take home message that the child with a stick is actually deprived, and the "rich kids" have no need for that because they have the real thing? I think I am really missing something, because that idea does not resonate at all with me. Thank you for your insight- the wealth of information on these schools/philosophies is fascinating!

Quote:
Hi- first of all, this is my first ever post to MDC, altho I've been a long term lurker. My dd will start Kindergarten this year and I am deeply investigating montessori and waldorf schools (I almost said "vs."). I too am trying to understand the place of imagination in montessori. I understand it fully in Waldorf (have been in Waldorf from infant through preschool) and am starting to think at this point my very bright child may actually thrive with less imaginative play- she is hungry to read and is very task oriented. Can anyone maybe elaborate on the quote above? Is the take home message that the child with a stick is actually deprived, and the "rich kids" have no need for that because they have the real thing? I think I am really missing something, because that idea does not resonate at all with me. Thank you for your insight- the wealth of information on these schools/philosophies is fascinating![/QUOTE]

I think the idea is that the rich children don't even have the imagination to realize why the poor children are having fun, let alone the imagination to actually have fun pretending something. But they realize at a subconscious level that there's something deeply wrong with themselves for not finding pretend play fun, so they just act like little snots rather than admit that there's something wrong.

The imaginative play stuff gets brought up A LOT on this forum. Every few weeks there's a thread about it. It's usually a really interesting conversation, and I definitely recommend finding a few threads and looking through them. This was an interesting one that is fairly recent: http://www.mothering.com/discussions....php?t=1186292

Quote:
This is exactly what DD's kindy teacher told me the other day. It was after the school day had ended and I was chatting with the teacher when I noticed DD and another child were "playing" with a job. It was a group of plastic animals (the job was to match the African animal to its name, I think) and they were "making the animals talk". I asked how she would handle that situation during job time and she simply said, "I would just re-present the work and how the job should be used." Honestly, I don't worry that my DD doesn't get to use her imagination. Her work period at school is 2 1/2 hours. The rest of the time is morning circle, lunch, recess, hearing a story, cultural work, and art. At home, she and her sisters engage in pretend play for about 5 hours a day! Actually, I am really glad she gets those 2 1/2 hours to really develop her focus and do something *other than* pretend play.

I loved the beauty of Waldorf, but I wanted more exposure to reality instead of the fairies and gnomes in a Waldorf school. Not that there is anything "wrong" with fairies and gnomes, but I just didn't want that for my children's education. We actually attend some Waldorf functions on weekends and my kids really love it. We are lucky to live right down the street from the Rudolf Steiner college. We just are not a Waldorfy type family (DW and I both worked in the music industry and we watch WAYYYY too much TV! )