King Solomon said that there is nothing new under the sun. His maxim is certainly true when it comes to philosophies of education. There is a popular perception in that industry that we must be constantly growing, constantly demonstrating an openness to “new ideas” and approaches. Well, there are no new ideas. Call me boring and closed minded, but in my opinion this is largely a marketing tactic that schools adopt in order to appeal to parents and make their literature more appealing. “Oh yes our teachers are required to take this class and that class, because we’re always learning…” Ok, this is essentially true. I’m not so arrogant to think I know everything. But nor am I a babe in the woods. I do know some things… like how to do my job effectively. As a teacher I’m fully willing to consider potentially new approaches, but don’t ask me to rethink my entire philosophy and methodology of education because someone has discovered a great “new” method I’ve just got to look into. I’m too old for that.

One old idea I’ve been hearing about a lot again recently is the Montessori approach. Throughout my teacher training it was drilled into me that the method was deeply flawed. But when a friend who had received a very positive report asked my opinion I found myself surprised at my own lack of knowledge, so I felt compelled to briefly revisit the topic.

The approach took shape in the early 1900s. It was based on the philosophies of Dr. Maria Montessori. Dr. Montessori stressed using the student’s natural impulses and cultivating and directing them in a positive direction for the purposes education. Among the impulses she identified were attributes like;self-preservation, environment orientation, order, exploration, communication, etc. Students are encouraged to learn and “study” what most stimulates their senses and drives their interest. The classroom is largely student-centric. Children are encouraged to interact with, and experience the subject on multiple sensory levels.

Now I can appreciate the idea of learning through hands on experience, (though not all experiences are positive. Some are better learned about in the abstract). But what about developing critical reasoning? Certainly some students with naturally inquisitive minds would do well in this model. But like my sister in law who prospered in an A.C.E. school, some students will find the best in any environment. I was not one of these however. I would have either laid on my back staring at the ceiling, or chased the other students around with a sharp stick. Based on my limited understanding of the approach it seems too focused on the tactile and less concerned with the abstract.

I’m open to the possibility that I’m either misinterpreting the method or that I’m missing some important aspect of the methodology which would force me to reconsider my position, but here’s my central reservation about Montessori education: Students are more than physical organisms to be massaged and stimulated. They have minds that need direction, discipline and inspiration. Humanity possesses a spiritual nature which requires more than external stimuli. Call me idealistic and old fashion, but isn’t education at least partially about teaching students how to perceive what’s true? Montessori education may be appropriate for some students. But as for me I think I’ll stick to a traditional teacher / subject driven classroom. But that’s just me…