Modus Operandi

The most obvious argument in favor of the Montessori method is that it produces children that are smarter, more adaptive to change, and have a stronger sense of community than standard public tools. This has been proven time and time again as students have transferred into mainstreamed public schools and/or leave for college. When you look at the unique teaching style used by Montessori teachers the reason why is clear. The most prominent feature of this style is that students are essentially left to teach themselves by using an array of didactic tools. While teachers are present, their function is merely to guide students through the learning process and to re-direct them if needed. Students are left to co-operate with each other and choose the order in which they do work. Because of the fact that students are more actively taking a part in their education they retain more knowledge. Also, because of the employment of "centers," students better learn to interact with their peers more productively. In addition to teaching subjects such as math, language, and science, a key aspect of the Montessori method is employing practical skills such as sweeping, cleaning dishes, and wiping down tables. In this way, students are taught to be more independent.

So Is It Effective or Not?

It depends on who you ask really. There are going to be people on both sides of the issue who have strong convictions that their opinion is absolute. On one side, Montessori schools have shown to be highly effective teaching methods in private, charter, magnet, and even in regular public schools. Children who have graduated from a Montessori school have been shown to score higher on cognitive tests, be more socially adaptive, and to have a stronger sense of community. It also helps that the method fosters independence in children and uses techniques that stimulates multiple senses, rather than the traditional visual and aural strategies, which should logically improve the education of students, especially younger ones.

Too bad the method isn't 100% consistent. There are cases of public schools having to terminate their Montessori programs because they just haven't delivered the elevated test results that are promised and needed to get government funding. And considering the cost of maintaing a Montessori program, which includes special training for teachers and specially made school materials, some people just don't think it's worth it. Another major critque of the method is that it actually represses creativity with strictly regimented materials and a lack of traditionally creative activities like painting, free play, and stories. And then of course there's NCLB. Because every public school that wants government funding needs to pass standardized tests, the Montessori method appears to be detrimental to a school's status. After all, incorporating tests into a Montessori classroom is like adding hot sauce to an ice cream sundae. It doesn't work

But NCLB is useless anyway. Thousands of schools have been forced to push their children through the educational system, whether they're ready or not and then lose their funding because their ill-prepared students can't pass the "standardized" tests that really don't matter. Evidence has shown that if implemented properly, and even if it is integrated with some traditional rote learning methods, Montessori style teaching is definitely the superior teaching method, at least when it comes to educating younger children.

And so in my opinion, all public schools should incorporate Montessori style teaching strategies to at least some degree. Schools should try to solely use this method for kindergarten (since pre-K isn't nationalized as of yet) and as students age up they should be introduced progressively to rote style teaching. The methods we use now barely work. Why continue producing more failuers and ruining more lives just because of standardized tests and an infatuation with tradition?

The Issue at Hand

It is a sad day when our country, constantly boasting about being a world superpower and being a "true democracy" (it's not a democracy by the way; it's a democratic republic), is faced with a generation of students who have a lower chance of graduating high school than their parents. While of course there are obvious causes of this, such as a lack of school funding and a shortage of teachers, it's plausible that it may be the education system itself that is flawed. Already parents have the choice of sending their children to private "alternative" school if they're rich enough. One of the most well-known of these alternatives is the Montessori method, which has mainly pre-school and kindergarten students participating in self-directed lessons while adults evaluate their progress and growth. Even without any background information, the differences between the traditionally teacher-directed public system is obvious.

However is the cost of sending a child to a Montessori school, which can cost more than $800 a month, really worth it? Despite all of the praise that is given to the Montessori method, is there really a significant difference in the quality of education between private Montessori schools, which are not legally obligated to hold up to any "Montessori standard" and the run-of-the-mill public schools? And finally, would it be beneficial to the education of United States citizens as a whole to incorporate Montessori teaching in public schools or perhaps even adapt it as a widespread alternative to the traditional methods of rote learning? Ultimately, these are the questions I hope to be able to answer in my paper.