Sundrop Montessori refers to a chain of schools across Charleston. The one that I visited was located in North Charleston and held both a Toddler classroom (18 months to 2 years) and a Primary Classroom (ages 3-6), covering the span of development that Montessori discusses in The Absorbent Mind.

It has been intriguing to see how each Montessori school I have seen imparts a different initial impression. Whereas Montessori Fountainhead felt like a home from childhood, East Cooper a peaceful workspace, Sundrop Montessori felt like a daycare center—relaxed, unstructured, and safe. While Sundrop Montessori contained fewer materials, having been recently established at the North Charleston location, the classrooms held the most space of the three, and the class size was the largest I’d seen so far, with 30 students in the Primary classroom.

I began my observation in the infant and toddler classroom, where about seven children were free to pick various sensory materials off of the shelf—I noted one girl playing with the “locks”, a material of various locks and hinges for the child to undo and redo, thus building practical fine motor skills. Many children wanted a book read aloud to them, and I was happy to oblige. One two-year old girl sat at a table with a foam pegboard for the duration of my forty-minute observation—a length of time that, for an early childhood lesson, would be deemed developmentally inappropriate even in kindergarten. I can see exemplified by this observation Montessori’s idea of “normalization”—the idea that concentration produces discipline, self-regulation, and absorption or commitment to a task until the individual is satisfied in its completion. In these forty minutes, then, the child has not only developed physical skills or visual discrimination abilities, but has also developed independence in choosing a task of interest. The teacher, meanwhile, was instructing another student in use of the color tiles. This is generally taught through the “Three Period Lesson”, which involves: 1. Introduction to the topic (“This is green.”), 2. Orientation of the student to the topic (“Can you point to green?”), and 3. Testing the student’s recognition (moving the color tiles and switching their order, the teacher will ask, “Can you move the green here?”). The teacher used very few words in her instruction, another important component to Montessori lessons. Both teachers in the infant classroom referred to all projects as “work”, thus maintaining the consistency of the curriculum. They swooped in to teach children how to properly replace materials and care for the work around them—for example, requesting that a child replace the work mat they kicked, or finish one work before beginning a new one. Although it was challenging to keep the toddlers quiet in the Montessori room, I could see how the teachers used instruction to build skills that would be necessary in the primary classroom. When the infants left for some time in the school’s garden, I moved to the primary classroom for the latter half of my observation.

The primary classroom, in contrast to the infant room, was much larger. The space was organized efficiently, with the exception of a snack area that was perhaps a bit small. Children were spread around the room, as they were at East Cooper Montessori, and absorbed in their work. Materials were arranged with specific locations and purposes—while observing two children engaged in pretend play with dinosaurs, the teacher stopped by and requested that the children sort the dinosaurs and “continue the work” designed with those materials. I found this interesting, because pretend play is normally encouraged at all times in child development.  

The students paused their work for a circle time, leaving a nametag by whatever activity they had left. As the teacher passed around a snack, the students discussed the calendar, the weather, the days of the week, and the continents on a map. They sang a good morning song using sign language as well. Two circle times—an older group and a younger group—occurred in different areas of the classroom, with little opportunity for the students to transition between groups. Aspects of circle time incorporated Spanish vocabulary as well.

The students who I spoke with were eager to share their work. Two students, a boy and a girl of different ages, were constructing a string bead chain, counting their beads up to the 500’s using number tags. Another student, engaged with a mathematical task, informed me that he liked “the easy work” at this school. A young girl showed me a clothing board she had completed, saying, “Do you like my work? It looks like me.” While I am uncertain how the cloth ‘looked like her’, I felt this was an example of the overall level of investment in work and connection to school felt by every student I observed. Sundrop Montessori was another case of observation where I left the school feeling peaceful, focused, and ready to begin with the rest of my day. I am truly a fan of the Montessori system, and cannot wait to continue to visit more schools in the future. 

Much of the research that relates the success of a Montessori curriculum is tied to a practitioner of Montessori schooling, leading readers to believe that research is biased. Angeline Lillard’s book, Montessori: The Science Behind the Genius, is an answer to this problem in the field of research related to Montessori curriculum. She has tied recent research in the fields of psychology, neuroscience, child development, and education, to the tenets of the Montessori method in order to build an argument for this form of schooling as a viable alternative to the traditional “factory model” of school. Lillard’s book progresses logically, flows in an interesting and easily navigable manner, and contains the thousands of interesting research tidbits that a psychology major like myself truly enjoys.

Each chapter in this book breaks down a different aspect of child development. Chapter 1 contrasts traditional schooling with the Montessori setting. Chapter 2 explains the role of motor development in learning and draws the connection between physical skill and cognitive skill. Lillard makes an interesting point here—because movement is the expression of interest and reflection of cognitive development (babies take note of objects in their reach; babies develop vision and depth perception as they learn to crawl), the Montessori curriculum uses movement through providing manipulatives. The child learns abstract concepts through concrete actions. For example, a child moves his hands up a number stick, physically able to count the length and order the sticks sequentially. Chapter 3 continues with cognitive development, discussing the importance of child autonomy (choice) and maintaining within the student a high level of perceived control over learning. Chapter 8 continues with this idea of incorporating choice in the classroom by addressing how a teacher’s style of classroom management (a major difference between Montessori schooling and traditional schooling) affects the learning culture.

Chapter 6 explains how Montessori’s mixed-age groupings in classroom produce successful work by highlighting research on peer groups and peer interactions in educational settings. Similar to the social learning theory of Vygotsky, research demonstrates that peer scaffolding seems to be highly effective in improving student performance. Chapter 7 incorporates another practice of Montessori schooling—the situation of new learning in meaningful contexts for the students—by comparing it to research on schema, the importance of prior knowledge in tackling new problems, and the importance of socially meaningful topics of study. Chapter 9 draws a distinction between the classroom environment of a traditional classroom and a Montessori classroom, comparing the level of structure in each setting to that of a successful home routine. Certain home routines have been shown to improve academic outcomes in young children. The nature of those routines align with the classroom environment of a Montessori school rather than that of traditional schooling.

Throughout the whole book, Lillard is definitely advocating for a switch to Montessori schooling; however, the research she uses to support her arguments comes from unbiased, neutral sources. None of the research contained in her book is directly related to a Montessori school—rather, Lillard spends time gently hinting at various possibilities for future research with a specifically Montessori student population. Nevertheless, the research is fascinating, and the implications it holds for education give pause for concern. I look forward to spending more time engaged with this book, taking the ideas within and incorporating them into my own classroom practice.

Observing at East Cooper Montessori, I spent my morning in conversation with the students of the lower Elementary class, which ranges from 6 to 9 years of age and spans three “levels”.  The classroom design, while not as natural or home-like as that of the Montessori Fountainhead school, was still peaceful and aesthetically pleasing. There was a corner for reading filled with cozy pillows and rugs, and a large aquarium with the class pet and surrounding vegetation. Children were sprawled around the room, at a desk, standing up, or in a workspace on the floor. The teacher gracefully made her way from child to child, locked in quiet consultation over the work journals—packets of work selected by the child at the beginning of each week.

Interesting to see was the Smart Board and the use of a scripted curriculum computer game. SRA is also used in Orange Grove Charter Elementary, where my field experience has been this semester. Although no student was being taught by the scripted curriculum, the use of technology in the classroom and the use of an outside curriculum was interesting to note. It is possible that this was a compromise made between East Cooper and the Charleston County School District; however, I cannot say for certain as I never got the opportunity to ask. Although technology was not as pervasive in her time, Maria Montessori advocated for the inclusion of any current technology or materials that would contribute to the success of the student in practical life beyond the classroom. Many schools today do not consider technology to be against a traditional Montessori curriculum (Lillard, 2004). I was surprised to learn this, knowing from hearsay that traditional Montessori is often strictly against the incorporation of outside materials.

It was extraordinary to observe the pride that students took in the classroom space and the vigor with which they performed their schoolwork. A girl in third year was drafting a story about a dolphin, and consulted me on some of her possible plot points. She proceeded to inform me about her sea turtle study, her love of writing, and her trip to the aquarium. Our conversation did not stray far from her ultimate goal—did she want to describe the dolphin’s journey, or the dolphin’s habitat?

Another child gave me a tour of the room, from the word storage boxes to the library, from the snacks to the math shelf, and we returned to her workspace on the floor, where she was tracing words in multiple colors, learning to spell. Yet another student taught me and another student how to do long division—a prime example of the type of peer scaffolding desired by Montessori in all of her mixed-age classrooms. Several students worked on cursive sheets, labeled parts of speech in a sentence strip by drawing a specific shape over each part of the phrase, or engaged in dynamic math exercises using the bead manipulatives. 

The teacher addressed her students as “my friends”, and had to gently remind them through the use of a tri-tone bell to lower the volume of the classroom. When she rang the bell a third time, she requested a period of silence in order to “refocus on our work”.

East Cooper reflected the child autonomy and the productive spirit embodied through the Montessori method, yet still incorporated popular aspects of a traditional American classroom—children have a read aloud time, use a scripted reading/writing curriculum, and have access to iPad or Smart Board technology. It was wonderful to see the balance maintained between objectives in the curriculum and the freedom of students to pursue their interests. With each observation, I grow more fascinated by the Montessori method, and hope to attain such a peace and diligence in my own classroom environment. 

The Charleston Montessori Fountainhead School is tucked away on Meeting Street. Approaching the door to the primary classroom, it is easy to forget the Charleston traffic that rushes behind you as you walk up the clean, creaking porch steps.

The children looked up immediately, noticing their new visitor. I introduced myself to the teacher, a woman originally from Russia, who was trained in the Montessori method during her time in Italy. She gazed around the room and, after gesturing to a corner where I could place my bag, said "It is better if you sit down...it is better if you are on their level right now." So I sat, in a small wooden chair next to a shelf of puzzles and plants. 

Two children on the carpet, their workspace delineated by a small blue mat, were placing wooden circles of increasing diameter in one oblong wooden platform. A young toddler watched as his older companion deftly ordered the circles, correcting his mistakes. 

Two boys roamed around the room, finishing puzzles and picking up new activities in a flurry that directly opposed the unbreakable concentration of a girl nestled in the reading center. 

Another child sat in the snack area, helping himself to a plate of blueberries and graham crackers, which he had taken from the refrigerator. 

Three children had involved themselves in the reorganization of the bookshelf, due to one child's frustration with the absence of the right leveled reader. The teacher gently stepped in. "This is what happens when materials are not put away in their place. Perhaps you can make sure that this won't happen in the future." 

I made my way to the art center, separated from the rest of the room by a narrow entrance. Two industrious 4-year-old artists were in conversation about their work:

"You painted over your name."
"That's okay. I know that I want a lot of paint and so I did it on purpose."

It is this attitude of purpose and direction, of self-motivation and independence, that defines the classroom environment. My conversations with the students remain brief, as their attention strays to their work. 

What I observe is the free time; later in the day children will have a collective lesson in Russian language, and continue with their thematic unit, birds (art projects, puzzles, coloring pages, all have a bird theme). During the Russian lesson, one boy is allowed to continue work separately, eventually joining the lesson at his convenience.  Another girl silently leaves the circle, grabs some gloves from her cubby, and returns to the circle to continue participating in the lesson. The level of self-regulation is not unlike a typical 3-6 year old classroom; however, each child appears to self-regulate in a manner that differs from other classroom observations I've made. 

The Russian language lesson is the only bit of direct instruction I observe. The role of the teacher in this classroom is support. One lead teacher and one assistant aid students in finding work, reaching snacks, and bathroom trips. The teacher circulates around the room, stepping in as requested. She reads with two students who ask for her company, but otherwise her role is that of an observer; however, unlike me, her familiarity with the students and her understanding of the Montessori materials allows her to scaffold the progress of her students; for example, making the suggestion to her young writers that the step beyond creating words would be rewriting them in a journal. The children quickly lose interest in that next step; however, the foundation has been laid for future work. 

The Absorbent Mind, by Maria Montessori, is an in-depth explanation of Montessori’s discoveries related to child development in the first six years of life. Montessori was astounded by the almost effortless quality of children’s learning at this age—as though they could ‘absorb’ knowledge from the surrounding environment: “There is in the child a special kind of sensitivity which leads him to absorb everything about him, and it is this work of observing and absorbing that alone enables him to adapt himself to life” (62). Using her own research, Montessori builds the case for a specific framework for education of young children, a particular lens through which to view the young learners in an early childhood classroom.

The book begins by identifying the two major components of learning: the individual (both ‘body’ and ‘soul’) and the environment. Montessori builds a particular view of the individual in order to inform her later argument about the importance of the environment. Montessori writes of the individual learner as fully engaged with the world—not an empty vessel in need of a factory-style education, but an active explorer beginning on an innate trajectory, in need of wisdom and guidance from a more knowledgeable other. She states, “we discovered that education is not something which the teacher does, but that it is a natural process which develops spontaneously in the human being…We as teachers can only help the work going on, as servants wait upon a master” (p. 8-9). Montessori saw the role of the teacher as that of an active observer and careful experimenter, intervening with the child’s actions only in ways that furthered the development of independence. Determining when to intervene depended on certain sensitive periods in development—in other words, the child needs to be prepared for the next step in instruction. Montessori even goes so far as to say that for the student, “It matters much more to have a prepared mind than a good teacher” (184). Montessori held deep respect for the independent nature of an actively learning child. She felt that, with a prepared environment, the child could be free to learn at his or her own choosing.

Throughout her book are exclamations at the curiosity and ingenuity of the child. Her enthusiasm in writing made for a very enthusiastic reader. I felt that my mind was expanded by all of the detail she included in her writing—every statement and reflection was supported by an account of previous experiences or observations. Montessori was particularly amazed by the ability of the child to focus, to the exclusion of all outside stimuli, on a task of interest. For this reason, she strongly asserts that in education, “the essential thing is for the task to arouse such an interest that it engages the child’s whole personality” (206). That, in Montessori’s opinion, was the aim and final goal of education—to allow the child to develop his or her unique personality, in order to live as an independent, productive member of society.

            While this book is filled with flowery language, and at times was highly repetitive, I found my eyes opened to the kind of teacher I personally strive to be and to a new way of observing and considering the actions of young children. It has changed my views on many aspects of education, and I am left with a deep and abiding respect for the life and accomplishments of Maria Montessori. I have found in her view of education a philosophy very similar and compatible with my own background as a psychology major-turned-educator. I would recommend this book highly to any aspiring teacher. 

I do not, at this point, know a great deal about the Montessori outlook or how it is implemented within a school system. I know that the curriculum is structured around tasks and tools, materials that build specific skills in a specific order. The order of the day is determined largely by the child, and the progression through these skills varies from student to student, depending upon their particular interests. I know it is a curriculum style that is resurfacing as emphasis in early childhood education is placed on child-centered instruction, but I also know that many aspects of the Montessori method have come under severe scrutiny.

My personal interest in the Montessori method began last semester, after reading a brief biography of her life from one of our introductory textbooks. This excerpt, describing a woman with a scientific background who sought reform in education, compelled me to look up more information. (For more information about the biography of Montessori, consult "Montessori: A History")

I see aspects of the teacher I wish to become exemplified in the life of Maria Montessori, and I see value in the ways she has constructed her curriculum. However, because my knowledge is at this point limited, I have yet to determine the extent of its value for myself. I do not yet have sufficient information to apply it to what I know about early childhood education today. In order to find out all I can, I've outlined a plan for reading and observation. 

Thank you for following along with this learning log! 

-Anna