The Montessori Mafia

I went to a Waldorf/Steiner school, which shares some of these traits such as the lack of a focus on assessment and grading and the emphasis on creativity.<p>We weren't taught the alphabet until the age of about 6-7 and basic arithmetic at 7-8. We did begin learning foreign languages at age 6, however. In practice my older brother taught me to read and count well before the Steiner curriculum did, but I still think that the education was very valuable.<p>I think that creativity in adults is often stifled because they don't want to "get it wrong". People are afraid of trying their hand at a new skill or taking a risk on a new idea because they are "realistic" about their chances of success. Children just do it anyway. I think that Steiner schools encourage this attitude, and no doubt Montessori schools do the same.<p>There's a reason the really big hitters are often first-time entrepreneurs - they are naive enough to try. Creativity works the same way.

<i>"When Barbara Walters, who interviewed Google founders Messrs. Page and Brin in 2004, asked if having parents who were college professors was a major factor behind their success, they instead credited their early Montessori education"</i><p>Ahem. I spy a latent variable in this correlation. Can you find it?<p>Hint: Montessori education may or may not have advantages. But unless you control for educational background and income of the family, your analysis has a problem.

I have children aged 13, 10 and 5. The oldest spent 1 year in a traditional preschool, but they've gone exclusively to Montessori school since that time.<p>What strikes me about this article is its characterization of Montessori schooling as largely unstructured and free. I think it must be comparing it to a much over-structured methodology, perhaps like the public schooling I got growing up.<p>Styles vary somewhat among Montessori schools, but what I've seen is that in the early years, the age Montessori is most known for, there are specific materials children work with and specific ways they're expected to work with them. A child may not get out a work he/she hasn't been shown how to use. He must return the work to its proper place before selecting another one. The materials aren't tools for self-discovery. They're tools for letting self collide with reality until such time as the applicable real concepts are understood.<p>However, the one simple freedom of being able to choose a work does make it a sharp contrast from the lock-step style of education I grew up with. I hear public schools aren't always this way, according to relatives who sent kids to public school in Lexington, MA.<p>In higher grades the emphasis on materials fades, but the basic idea of letting children work within a structure remains. For example, in upper elementary (grades 4-6) the students develop their own classroom code of conduct. They're given some structure about how to do it, though. I see Montessori as a balanced methodology on the freedom/structure dimension, not an extreme.

Maria Montessori lived in Italy a 100 years ago, and no doubt she was a reformist. She was the first woman doctor, she worked with children with mental disabilities when children was not considered humans, and she noticed that, her approach is applicable to all children. She invented very useful methods and tools for teaching preschoolers. She made wonderful toys which are now called "Montessori Materials". Her method is spread to US, and "adapted".<p>Montessori teachers are certified largely by two centers in the world, in Italy (<a href="http://www.montessori-ami.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.montessori-ami.org/</a>), and in US (<a href="http://www.amshq.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.amshq.org/</a>). As far as I know AMI sees itself as the "original" Montessori, rejects others, and more strict in many ways, like they don't allow any toys in classrooms, they don't have any books (just lapbooks produced by teachers or children).<p>I have real problems with strict, spiritual Montessori. Why would we be against to toys? Maria Montessori crafted wonderful toys for her students, and now they are called "Montessori Materials". What's wrong with Lego's? I think if Maria Montessori had Lego, she would use them.<p>Montessori, Waldorf, Reggio Emilia, all have different methods to inspire for raising kids and even for start-ups (<a href="http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&#38;context=famconfacpub" rel="nofollow">http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10...</a>). But, none is magic.

This is just confirmation bias. Page credits "part of that training of not following rules and orders, and being self-motivated, questioning what’s going on in the world, doing things a little bit differently." As a Montessori kid myself, I could see myself having differing opinions depending on how the future turned out.<p>Successful: go back and credit Montessori for making me a rebellious, curious nonconformist.<p>Unsuccessful: go back and partially blame Montessori for those same values, that make navigating this world of rules and structures difficult.<p>PG's writings would make me think that he leans more towards the Montessori side of things, and probably a lot of HNers are the same. I'm glad jsavimbi spoke about his need for strong discipline.

I really like the idea of Montessori, and if I have the cash I'd like to send my future kids there someday.<p>That being said, I see correlation here, not causation.<p>To be a little bit tongue and cheek, I could write the headline:<p>"99% of successful people do not attend Montessori schools"

Why does this result surprise anyone? Traditional US schools exist not to cultivate individuality, and make people more expressive and creative, but rather for different reasons.<p>Grade school is designed to teach people enough to read The Bible, and enough writing and arithmetic to not get cheated by the fancy, downtown shop keepers.<p>High school is designed to teach the bulk of the citizenry to work according to a fixed schedule, probably in a factory, along with a faceless mass of similary trained people.<p>It sounds inflammatory, but it's true.

Only if your education differed from the so-called basket of techniques lumped together as "the Montessori method".<p>It's been my experience that a home environment with parents who read and care about expanding horizons will tend to offer the children guided "self-directed" learning, observation and indirect teaching, and productive routines of "focused" activities versus idle play, and these children will tend to outperform peers without that same desire to constantly learn instilled in them -- <i>regardless of the formal education</i> they acquire.

My kids (4 &#38; 7) just moved from a traditional school to a Montessori school last summer because we moved house. I wasn't completely sold on the philosophy yet but my kids LIKE going to school a lot more now and it seems to work really well. Happy kids, learning a lot.<p>But it is very counterintuitive for the engineer in me who wants to measure progress by how much of the alphabet they know. It takes a lot of trust in the somewhat nebulous and touchy feely Montessori philosophy, if you read the wikipedia page about it you'll see that even the educators can't agree on what it is exactly. (Montessori did use scientific methods to arrive at her recommendations, but interpretations differ). There's things the type of educators in such schools do that makes us rational people cringe (kids are not allowed artificial flavoring in their lunch food...). But, well, it works (for my kids at least).<p>Since I am too rational to give up on measuring I conclude we are probably not measuring progress the right way by testing how much letters in the alphabet they know.

I am pretty skeptical of the Montessori approach.<p>Take kids from wealthy, well-educated families and put them in small groups with educators that also happen to be very well-educated and very passionate and you will get great results whatever the pedagogy.<p>Contrast this w/ poor kids whose parents had low educational attainments, stuck in giant classes with poorly-paid teachers.<p>If you put 6 well-off kids with 1 passionate, well-educated teacher, you will get good results almost every time.<p>Montessori approach may have its merits but I find it very hard to separate them from the demographics of its students and teachers. The study in Milwaukee does not seem sufficient to establish a link. Those passionate about teaching are probably more likely to be attracted to the Montessori school than the regular public schools because it has a distinctive approach and probably more liberal management.<p>I would love to love to know if the Montessori schools in teh Milwaukee school had the same teacher/student ratio as the other schools in the study. I am betting they didn't.

Is this even correlation? Is there any evidence to suggest that Montessori students are over-represented among the successful? Or are they simply proportionate?

I've been thinking about how I'd educate my own kids, and currently it's a tossup between the Harkness approach a la Phillips Exeter, the entirely home-schooled approach, and something like this which seems like a hybrid.<p>If anyone has experience with any of the above, I'd love to hear about it.

I have no problem with the Montessori method but if you're going to throw the names of a few very successful people as examples, you also need to show the full picture, i.e. for all these Montessori kids that became so successful, how many other successful people did <i>not</i> got to Montessori?<p>If anything, the fact that they only list 4-5 names tells me that at best, the kind of education you receive at that age is not that important after all (I think your parents and your environment are probably bigger factors) and at worst, the Montessori school doesn't really work that well after all.

Perhaps what is required here is a re-examination of the fundamental goals of what we refer to as "education." Is the purpose of school to teach a set of curriculum or to inculcate the habits necessary to become courageous explorers of the world and inventors of our own destinies? Montessori is just one alternative, but now, in a time of rapid change, is the time to begin and support multiple experiments. We need to explore the full range of functional pedagogies and see what new ways of teaching and learning can be developed. Looking for one "best" context or approach for learning is probably never going to work - the fundamental assumption is wrong.<p>An educational monoculture suffers the same vulnerabilities that a biological monoculture does. We should foster a diversity of approaches, supporting the sharing of techniques, approaches, and contexts.<p>This is why we are starting a new K-12 school, based on some new ideas (Tinkering School, and A Curious Summer) and incorporating some really old ideas (apprenticeship and mastery). We call it <i>Brightworks</i> (<a href="http://sfbrightworks.org" rel="nofollow">http://sfbrightworks.org</a>). Have a look at our approach, share your ideas, join us at the edge of innovation in education.

Fascinating insight. But isn't this a classic case of of correlation, not causation?

Interesting article, but what about Steve Jobs? Warren Buffet? Bill Gates? It's easy to pick a few examples of anything, but it doesn't make it a real trend.

I have a hunch (definitely not an assertion) that even if there are effects from Montessori school early on, they wash out over time, and the major factors afterward are socioeconomic status and habits of parents, and subsequent education (K-12). I guess I'm paraphrasing Freakonomics.

what type of people would be developed by combined approach of Montessori and Tiger Mom? :)

Are all of the examples male? Do Montessori schools help females too?

Perhaps creative minded people fit in better in Montessori schools and therefore credit the school with love of learning. Where's the proof that the Montessori method created the effect?

"Questions are the new answers" -- Socrates, 429 B.C.

I can't speak for the higher end of Montessori as I only attended when I was just starting out my career in education, but I found it to be rewarding for someone with a wandering mind, more so than the strict rote-based Catholic-influenced education I was subjected to further on. I also experienced British private school, and that was definitely better than public but without the scientific approach that I saw at Montessori.<p>It depends on the kid, I guess. I have an independent, creative side to me that also needs strong discipline to get anything done, so I'm grateful to have experienced both worlds. As far as current prices go, my divorced and randomly employed mother was sending both my sister and I there until we opted for the local public school as it fit better with our social lives, and I know there were some kids there in the same boat as us, but overall it was a good mix back then with the benefit of being in the hippy Cambridge of the '70s.<p>My advice would be to buy the best education for your kids that your money can buy, and unless your local school system is the pits, I wouldn't home-school them. There's a lot to be said for socializing at an early age and teaching the kids subjects in addition to the regular curriculum isn't against the law either. If the kids are smart, they'll put the regular coursework behind them and need the extra teaching anyways.<p>If the child is a dullard, don't waste too much money on them as you'll need it for later on for when they really fuck up.

I went too Montessori and I am sitting behind a damn desk administering systems...looks like I missed the awewsomness bus

"What is 10 plus 1?"<p>"101?"<p>"I'm sorry M'a'm, your son is an idiot"