Why shouldn't all education be Montessori-style?
By all education, I mean ALL, from kindergarten to PhD, self-directed, largely auto-didactic, the teacher as occasional facilitator only, and more collaborative group work in school and undergraduate level.
Very interesting article...thanks for sharing :)
But, you know...kids are really cool. I help in my son's class a couple times each year and the kids are typically so honest, open and kind.
1. Better teachers. Now most of the teachers in my area are good, but there simply is no substitute for being compensated for work performed. You can not falsify that feeling you get from receiving an honest paycheck for honest work - the satisfaction of a job well done.
2. Better teacher pay. Not sure about other areas of the country, but in my neck of the woods, the administrators are payed 2-3x what the teachers are. And we get the same old complaints every year from them - that the teachers don't get paid enough. Then the Legislature bumps up education spending (more than 50% of my State's total expenditures), but the pay raises go to the administrators. This bait-and-switch nonsense infuriates me to no end.
3. Better parents. Parents who have to pay to have their children educated are going to be painfully aware - via their pocketbooks - of the cost of such. As such, this will pointedly encourage them to discipline their children to pay better attention in class, not act out, and do their work. And studies have shown that the best indicator of student success are engaged parents.
4. Better students. Teachers are not there to discipline or babysit, but to teach. Students that disrupt the learning process can more easily get tossed out of school for egregious behavior. Also, see #3.
5. Better curriculum. Local curriculum control allows for better adaptation to local conditions and students' needs. Additionally, it also forces curriculum makers to compete for business by focusing on needs and delivery methods of their customers instead of bureaucrats.
Arguments against:
Q. Isn't this going to price some poor people out of the system entirely?
A. Perhaps. There is nothing stopping local legislatures from approving voucher systems, however. Further, you would be relieving the tax burden on all the population, enabling the economy to grow. There are plenty of economic and monetary benefits.
Q. So how do you ensure uniformity of education across the country?
A. Why does there need to be uniformity at all? Let people gravitate to what they do best - just as they do in the job market. Specialization is the key to gainful employ - not generalization.
Q. What about testing for placement in advanced education?
A. Let the colleges and universities deal with it. There's no reason a bureaucracy has to be in charge. If a group of schools - say a conference - want to formulate a standard admissions test, that's up to them to do.
My son, who has autism, goes to a Montessori school and he is doing very well there. It works...for a very wide swath of kids.
Read Montessori's The Secret of Childhood for an insight to her brilliant mind.
Following one's passions makes education easy. My daughter, at 13, has blasted through grade 8, 9, and 10 English and Socials. She still struggles in Grade 7 math. That is where I step in. My Grade 11 boy chose to write his political essay on "The Collective Good of Individualism." There is no public school in the world that would have brought that thinking about. Surprisingly, this strong minded conservative child has also developed an artistic side as a competitively dancer and teacher of dance. My Grade 6 boy does "virtual school" on the computer with teachers and classmates meeting and collaborating on how to solve the worlds problems using or exploring the worlds mysteries. The program (Quest Atlantis) was developed in the US but used by many who bring their kids home. No charge. Finally, my Grade 10 boy chooses to follow most provincial curriculum but fixes computer and helps people with software issues on the side. He's already got a start in his career.
As a parent who likes participating, we chose a sport we can all do together. After years of karate, three of us after black belts and the younger only a few years away. The education system here has supported our choice of sports for "PE."
So, while the model here is not perfect (as you must bring your kids home to participate) it serves both parent and child by providing a wise variety of curriculum chosen by the parent (or student), finances for sports and music, online options for full courses, and a skyping option for upper grade support in any subject.
Unions hate the program, though they can't dispute the general success. Still, they may place a large roll in its demise. Generally speaking, union teachers do not trust parent to teach or kids to learn by exploring the word for themselves. Ironically, many if the newest converts to this program of schooling are teachers bringing their kids home.
With our child we discovered a couple of things.
First, with a bright, quick-learning child, the general curriculum is overly repetitive and boring. That's because Montessori was developed to reclaim damaged children from Italian orphanages, not as the ultimate development strategy for bright children who had been in a great developmental environment from the beginning.
Second, the "Montessori movement" ranges from those who see it as a marketing ploy to sell child care to those believing its a great thing -- to true believers who regard it in a nearly cult-like manner to be implemented faithfully as Maria spelled-out. Caveat Emptor!
To all of my friends who are already dividing themselves between their other family and friends due to politicians, please allow me to provide clarification regarding Obama's Free Associates and even a solution.
This idea was never supposed to pass. His intent was never to give you free college. If that was Obama's intent, he'd have done it when he had control of congress. No, he has proposed it because he knows the republicans will oppose it and he hopes this forces the youth vote to go to the democrats in 2016. If for some reason the Rs don't take the bait and a version of the idea passes, he wins because he's once again increased the size of government in our lives and created more wealth spreading.
SOLUTION: If Obama actually wanted to give a free education he'd have a professional educator within the Dept of Education (assuming there is one) develop an Associates of Arts and Associates of Science curriculum completely consisting of ALREADY FREE courses that you can take online. People completing the curriculum are awarded an Obama's Associates Degree.
It took me about 45 minutes yesterday to find 60 hours of English, math, history, arts, physical science and elective courses taught by Ivy League schools such as MIT, George Washington Univ, Harvard, Univ Texas, Rice, Stanford, Brown...
For more info on these free courses start at www.coursera.org, www.mooc-list.com, www.edx.org, www.oeconsortium.org, heck even iTunes U!
If you're a politician and actual education of the population is your goal, there's no excuse. Do it now.
It should be all of our intent to get everyone who surrounds us and education. In my example I was hoping it would be free while also not coming out of anybody else's pocket by force.
Montessori gave students enough respect to allow students to learn the way that they personally learn best. For those who are more introverted and reflective learners, this is their gold mine.
None of us should stop learning.
(The essence of humor is the unexpected--even when it is a good question).
Comedic Answer: Any given method of instruction is like Cougar Bait: "60% of the time it works 100% of the time". This means you're excluding the remaining 40%.
Longer Answer:
Picking any means, tool, or methodology as a single solution for everyone is ineffective at large regardless of the goal, intent, or even the effectiveness of the one picked. Either education is an art in which case we have no business trying to enforce a single style be used, or a science in which case we know that picking and enforcing a single technology (application of science) ensures lack of progress in the fundamental science in question.
If you're not asking why we don't mandate it and rather why the process of evolution hasn't led us to this as the One True Way, I'd refer back to the short and comedic answers. :)