Hacker News Reader

Comment by bjt2n3904 | Hacker News Reader

> The radical idea at the heart of Montessori’s method was not that children learn by play but that adults prevent them from learning by interrupting them. It was these interruptions that turned schools into places where ‘the body was tortured and contorted and the blood poisoned’.

The internal conflict I have over this is intense. On one hand, I firmly believe most education in America serves to keep children stupid -- and most public schools are more like prisons. Pink Floyd and such.

On the other hand, I also resist the notion that if you just let children be and investigate what they want, they'll naturally grow up to be healthy well rounded members of society.

Perhaps this is too simple an understanding of Maria's method, but I've had few people explain it well to me.

View on HN

A lot of early education is based on sensitive periods. Materials are introduced at ages and times when the child shows interest. It is guided learning.

Kids learn to do things like cut apples, with a regular knife. At age 3. I will never forget one parent’s reaction. She was horrified and asked us “won’t they cut themselves?” My partner: “yeah, usually.” You could see her mentally nope out. That is a great viewpoint into Montesorri’s philosophy: that small kids are way more capable in many regards than adults assume.

There is also almost no need for a traditional gifted program because as kids finish materials nee ones are available. Grades are very fluid in a Montesorri classroom and kids have the freedom to explore everything. I think it works well for most children. Better by a lot for most kids compared to the traditional systems of public school.

So you give them a specialized environment and let them loose and then follow their interests, “follow the child” as Montesorri said. Then you guide them. The materials are designed to make it easier for kids to do on their own, but they also get plenty of help.

It is a very uncomfortable notion for many parents, but my daughter is a great example. She is 10 and easily doing work several grades ahead in topics that she excels at. No need for a gifted program really, the materials and support system is there to let all kids work at their own pace.

Which kinds of knives? If they are sharp enough, and the kid loses a finger or an eye, I suppose that is also a learning experience, but are we willing to let them pay that price?

At least in our experience, it's graduated based on age and ability. Soft fruits and vegetables with a glorified shape cutter. Firmer things with a plastic or ceramic knife. Harder things with metal.

Not dissimilar to what you'd do at home, except supervised closely with peers and integrated into the classroom.

Edit: I should mention that gross and fine motor control is a really big focal point in general. Like how writing things down has been shown to improve memory, other forms of tactile interaction increase engagement and learning.

Similar experience. They aren’t given a massive finely sharpened chefs knife or anything. Just a small not too pointy knife that can manage small fruit. But it is still a sharp enough metal knife early on. They also set the environment up to keep it safe. One food station. Careful movement of knives. Near a sink, etc. never heard of more than a butterfly stitch or two across a lot of kids and parents :)

> It is a very uncomfortable notion for many parents

In my experience Americans seem to have a very negative view of knives in general. So I would phrase that as "for many American parents"

A lot seem to only eat with a fork, treating it like a spoon and leaving their knife to one side. My MIL has had to learn that my children use knives to eat, and if she doesn't give them one then they will ask.

What does “treating a fork like a spoon” mean exactly? Additionally, many, if not most, foods don’t require a knife to be eaten at all. I can’t remember the last time I brought a knife to the kitchen table.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_utensil_etiquette

Even with the European habits, using a fork spoon-style is inevitable to an extent. Some things are too small or soft to skewer.

From what I've noticed, people in other countries tend to use a spoon for things a lot of Americans use forks for. Eating rice, for example, is always done with a spoon. Same with cakes and similar soft food.

I (murrcan) use a fork as a knife. Not because of any knifobia (neologism ftw). Because it's handy and it usually works. Drives the (n.european) wifie nuts tho. But heck, why so many implements in the air ? It's eatin' time, not a display of hand-tool virtuosity. Teach the children.

How does Montessori address topics that may not be of much interest to a child but are still important and necessary in developing a well-rounded and productive member of society?

I'm thinking along the lines of getting all students a baseline level of maths even if their passions lie in words and language. Or perhaps vice-versa for the majority of this crowd.

There is a balance, but Montesorri is mostly an elementary level and below system. High schoolers and middle schoolers that still attend a Montesorri program have a much more structured curriculum. They still give kids more freedom with electives and research but follow a more college prep style curriculum. Interestingly kids in our Montesorri program have a way higher rate of finishing 2 and 4 years of college than avg. parents of Montesorri kids tend to be more focused on raising their kids well and educating them at home and at school compared to avg.

Our school is a charter school, publicly funded, but still fully Montesorri. It has a functional farm even.

Steiner preschool also entrusts children with knives to cut fruit (or at least mine did, back in the 90s).

I would trust 5-7 year olds with knives unsupervised or semi-supervised more than 8-11 year olds and definitely more than 13-15 year olds!

The missing part to the explanation is that Montessori teachers expend a significant amount of effort curating the physical space for learning. The classroom and the materials (with a strong focus on physical objects) constantly allow for the engagement in learning activities. This requires a lot of planning and maintenance. They're also not unattended - the scope is just longer durations. An hour, and afternoon, instead of 20 minutes for a worksheet.

Imagine putting a scientist in an excellent lab, with all the machines their domain required, fully stocked with reagents etc. Then in the morning, asking if three different tasks, which they'd like to do today. At the end of the day, asking what still needed to completed, and adding it to the three tasks for tomorrow. This is obviously a massive simplification, but hopefully it conveys the idea.

Here are some interesting thoughts on comparing some of these teaching methods:

> [Charlotte Mason's teaching style] is not unschooling, nor is it delight-directed. To illustrate the difference, imagine that you had a son who was interested in knights and wanted to learn more about them. With unschooling, you wouldn't plan any lessons but you would let your son read all the books he could find about knights, play knights games, look up knights on the internet. Then, you'd count those hours as school time. With delight-directed, you would note his interest in knights, and ditch your plans to teach about ancient cultures and US History, and instead plan a semester of lessons about knights. With CM, you would allow your son to learn all he wanted about knights in his spare time, but during school hours, you would continue to assign readings from chronological history and literature so he'd still be learning about ancient Egypt, Rome, US History, etc. because, as Charlotte Mason said, you never know what will ignite a passion in a child, so exposure to many topics is necessary. However, you would keep school hours short to give him plenty of time (and inclination) to learn about knights after school. [1]

Sounds like you might like Charlotte Mason's approach.

[1] https://www.amblesideonline.org/faq

No, actually I don't like that method! Infact, that's the one I was saying I don't like!

This weaponizes hedonism for education -- and it's good for children to learn that education can be gratifying. But there are many things in education that are not pleasing for some time.

If the child is not led to discipline themselves to learn things they don't necessarily enjoy... It's like trying to teach them to eat only things they enjoy.

To circle back, I really think these pop education methods are boiling down to fad diets. You can lose weight with the Paleo diet, or Jenny Craig, or avoiding carbs... But what do they all have in common? Caloric intake rules the day.

What percentage of school time should the child spend learning about things they're interested in, in a way that is deeper than what the curriculum calls for?

Charlotte Mason's answer is, let's say, 70%. Both unschooling and delight-driven learning answer this question with 100%. Keep in mind, with the Charlotte Mason method you still have to follow a planned curriculum 30% of the time, with all the accompanying test-taking, homework, etc.

I think it's a question of balance, like you said children need to learn self-discipline but they also need to learn that education can be gratifying. I don't think the answer to that question should be 0% or 100%, I think it should be somewhere in the middle.

It’s more guided discovery than a free-for-all. My daughter attends a Montessori school. She can, by and large, select what she works on from a pool of age- (and skill-) appropriate activities. She sets a goal each semester for something she wants to master (right now she’s working on a math puzzle.)

Our state does require a certain number of hours of instruction in core subjects, so there is a requirement for a certain amount of math, reading, etc. You could argue that what we have isn’t “pure” Montessori as a result, but to operate legally, it is what the school has to do.

I don’t think Montessori is for everyone — I know families at our school where some of their kids attend, and some are in public school because it works better for that particular kid. For us, it has been great for our daughter.

If it were between a public school and a Montessori school, the choice would be fairly easy. Such is my distaste for public schools.

I think though, what made her such an effective educator wasn't her method. Teaching seems to be more of an art form than a science. There are certainly fundamental principles of education, just like in art.

The art seems to be knowing when to use "one size fits all", and when to use "know the rules so you can break them".

Edit: And ultimately, I think the largest factor overlooked is the presence of the parents in their children's education.

A friend of mine is sending their kids to a Montessori school, and they're thriving there. But before that, he and his wife read and sang with their children every night. That does, in my mind, more than any other teacher could possibly do.

I think the key points you’re missing are that:

1) this is directed at young children.

2) “what they want” is really “what they want [in the context of the environment you’ve created for them]”. So the kids can’t do whatever they want.

> 1) this is directed at young children.

Note that while today Montessori is most commonly used in preschools, there are Montessori schools for much older children, and that was the original vision.

The article seems to contradict your claim:

> In 1936, all the Montessori schools in Italy were forced to shut. With the help of one of her students, Ada Pierson, Montessori settled in the Netherlands, where she lived until her death in 1952. Pierson gave her a big house in Laren, near Amsterdam, where she dreamed of expanding her method from young children to adolescents, ‘a delicate age, full of surprises’.

Most of the anecdotes in the article are about children younger than 6.

There are definitely Montessori schools/teachers that basically do nothing, but the idea is:

- create an environment for the child that encourages focused play (everything's in reach, nothing is too loud or flashy, etc.)

- intently observe the child (like, literally take notes), figure out what they're into, and give them more of it

People definitely feel different ways about this, similar to you, but not just about Montessori. Lots of places in the EU have reformatted their educational systems to be less rigid, and the results are pretty good [0]. I admit that if I had a kid unable to read by ~9 years old I'd be concerned, but it looks like generally things still go OK.

[0]: https://archive.ph/wLw5E (BBC)

As others mentioned, it’s not “let them do whatever”, but it requires a lot of planning.

You notice it by how more expensive are things (schools, books, toys) with the brand “montessori”. Lots of it is marketing and signaling, but lots of it is just more preparation going into it.

I would feel better about Montessori if there weren't branded items and toys. That part seems distasteful to me.

My understanding is that Maria Montessori never copyrighted her name or method, so it's actually a free-for-all where anyone can call their toys "Montessori", like STEM, not some central organization selling merch.

This goes for the schools too! There are "accredited Montessori schools", but any school can call itself Montessori with no penalty.

Yeah, there are a bunch of toys on Amazon with the "Montessori" label that have nothing to do with the official/traditional Montessori materials (which are specifically not called toys).

It's become a marketing term for any toy that's educational and made of wood.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com