Yes I think about it all the time, both presently and historically.
It's mainly an intellectual issue. That is: it's a dispute about what is true in development and education.
In the early 20th c., when American progressives and intellectuals were very interested in education, this dispute was explicit. The (nascent) educational establishment reviewed Montessori's works, attended her trainings and published criticisms, and held whole conferences on the problems with the method. She was very popular for about five years or so, but the popularity was grassroots. The intellectuals always thought she was wrong. Just as one example: the intellectual current in the US was to delay it until later for largely Rousseauvian reasons (reading is an adult imposition that children aren't naturally interested in). Montessori became famous in large part because she taught children how to read earlier. (This is mentioned in the review above.)
There were dozens of issues like this. Montessori thought there should be "an education of the senses"—but progressives critiqued this idea as incoherent. Montessori thought there should be specific, synthetically designed learning materials. Progressives thought there should be more natural experiences and fewer, if any, truly curricular "learning materials". Some thought her approach was too rigid, others too anarchic. Despite widespread public popularity, Dewey, his students, the NEA, and many many many others were vocally critical of her method. By 1916 it had all but vanished from the country, and wouldn't come back for over 40 years.
(There are modern versions of every single one of these critiques, but the overall educational scene is also just much less intellectual than it was a hundred years ago, so it's not as visible.)
But the first half of the 20th century is also precisely when the US school system took shape! It became bureaucratized, and US progressive educators themselves flip-flopped between different pedagogical approaches—from "project based" approaches to "efficiency" approaches that were more vocationally directed. By the time Montessorians clawed back some influence in the US, the basic shape of the system was already in place, and the only outlet it could take was as a grassroots movement. Which meant: lots of entrepreneurial women starting small schools in scattershot ways. Which means independent schools. Which means tuition.
The school system in the US is so badly broken that it also affects the nature and costs of independent schools. And Montessori schools are largely independent schools. So they are more expensive and less accessible. There's a very explicit narrative at play in the review above, one that concludes with completely unmerited swipes at Amazon/Day One. A frank look at current and historical school policy dynamics would conclude that the barrier to getting more Montessori education in the US is the public school system, and that philanthropic and entrepreneurial efforts to push Montessori forward are the only things that have kept it going at all.
The idea that Montessori schools are expensive, rare, and inaccessible because Montessori pushed them to be this way is really ridiculous. It's belied not just by the above narrative, which is a better explanation, but by decades of work that she did that was strongly characterized by humanitarian and activist efforts for the very poorest students, by many attempted (and mostly failed) partnerships that she attempted to engage in with any national government would listen, by her work in India during WWII (which has tremendous and ongoing influence), and more.
I wrote a Twitter thread (was a bit irritated when I banged this out, unfortunately) that makes some similar points here with a couple of specific citations, newspaper clippings, etc. https://twitter.com/mbateman/status/1499590385638821889
I’m part of a now-large-ish Montessori startup and am a sort of Montessori scholar. The biography reviewed here is very good and worth checking out. Overall it’s the best of the biographies available, and is a significant improvement over Kramer’s from a few decades ago.
Just an aside: the extended tangents in the review about Montessori’s entrepreneurialism turning her method into a classist privilege are, uh, really strange. The idea in the review seems to be that the rarity and expense of Montessori in the US is because she charged for trainings and tried to parent some materials. Purely as a matter of historical fact, this is a narrative in search of evidence that isn’t there, and a narrative that isn’t really face plausible. Montessori education is rare because the progressive intellectuals that built the US school system adamantly and vociferously rejected Montessori for pedagogical reasons. There are just way better explanations available for why her work didn’t take hold more widely.
Glad to see Montessori and Stefano’s biography in particular getting coverage though. I’ve enjoyed reading the many comments here about people’s experiences with Montessori!
This is very much a “yes and”. I think I can speak for all of us working on the course when I sat that we don’t think that industrial innovation is the only or even the most important part of history. Why does developing a course on one aspect somehow reduce the importance of another?
Yep. I travel to China frequently and this is a huge pain. There are some moderately useful workarounds you can do, like floating money from a friend in your WeChat Pay. But at the end of the day, you are highly dependent upon people hooked into the native financial infrastructure.
For what it's worth, what the Maya families are doing is a version of the central principle of Montessori early education (and what my company is trying to scale). That is, build a capacity for deep concentration in early childhood using (1) high autonomy pedagogical practices and (2) an environment with a structure that makes it possible for children to contribute to practical life.
I am part of a startup with founding team of 12 previous coworkers. One of our selling points during the seed round was that we're starting off with an aligned team. It was really attractive to some investors.
In principle the same should go for hiring, but in practice I think it's game theoretically more complicated. I've hired swaths of cohered tech teams before, but it was one by one, to allow for more individualized assessment and negotiation.
I agree. I'm inclined to think the concepts are more subtle, not less.
Some traits are shaped by sexual selection because of their deleterious effects. It's an honest signal: if you can survive despite having that crappy trait, you must be really robust!
You can't conceptualize that as a fitness hit, because of what fitness means in the context of evolutionary biology. But you had better be able to conceptualize it somehow, because it's interesting and important if true.
It's mainly an intellectual issue. That is: it's a dispute about what is true in development and education.
In the early 20th c., when American progressives and intellectuals were very interested in education, this dispute was explicit. The (nascent) educational establishment reviewed Montessori's works, attended her trainings and published criticisms, and held whole conferences on the problems with the method. She was very popular for about five years or so, but the popularity was grassroots. The intellectuals always thought she was wrong. Just as one example: the intellectual current in the US was to delay it until later for largely Rousseauvian reasons (reading is an adult imposition that children aren't naturally interested in). Montessori became famous in large part because she taught children how to read earlier. (This is mentioned in the review above.)
There were dozens of issues like this. Montessori thought there should be "an education of the senses"—but progressives critiqued this idea as incoherent. Montessori thought there should be specific, synthetically designed learning materials. Progressives thought there should be more natural experiences and fewer, if any, truly curricular "learning materials". Some thought her approach was too rigid, others too anarchic. Despite widespread public popularity, Dewey, his students, the NEA, and many many many others were vocally critical of her method. By 1916 it had all but vanished from the country, and wouldn't come back for over 40 years.
(There are modern versions of every single one of these critiques, but the overall educational scene is also just much less intellectual than it was a hundred years ago, so it's not as visible.)
But the first half of the 20th century is also precisely when the US school system took shape! It became bureaucratized, and US progressive educators themselves flip-flopped between different pedagogical approaches—from "project based" approaches to "efficiency" approaches that were more vocationally directed. By the time Montessorians clawed back some influence in the US, the basic shape of the system was already in place, and the only outlet it could take was as a grassroots movement. Which meant: lots of entrepreneurial women starting small schools in scattershot ways. Which means independent schools. Which means tuition.
The school system in the US is so badly broken that it also affects the nature and costs of independent schools. And Montessori schools are largely independent schools. So they are more expensive and less accessible. There's a very explicit narrative at play in the review above, one that concludes with completely unmerited swipes at Amazon/Day One. A frank look at current and historical school policy dynamics would conclude that the barrier to getting more Montessori education in the US is the public school system, and that philanthropic and entrepreneurial efforts to push Montessori forward are the only things that have kept it going at all.
The idea that Montessori schools are expensive, rare, and inaccessible because Montessori pushed them to be this way is really ridiculous. It's belied not just by the above narrative, which is a better explanation, but by decades of work that she did that was strongly characterized by humanitarian and activist efforts for the very poorest students, by many attempted (and mostly failed) partnerships that she attempted to engage in with any national government would listen, by her work in India during WWII (which has tremendous and ongoing influence), and more.
I wrote a Twitter thread (was a bit irritated when I banged this out, unfortunately) that makes some similar points here with a couple of specific citations, newspaper clippings, etc. https://twitter.com/mbateman/status/1499590385638821889