189006244
The current system has been proven that standards and results are a priority to be economically beneficial (Pimlott-Wilson and Coates, 2019). As the focus in the current system is for future employment, there are restrictions in place to what the children can learn which conflicts with childhood being seen as a time of play, being spontaneous and free (Pimlott-Wilson and Coates, 2019). However, this page argues for an alternative that will be based on ideas from Montessori and Forest schools (FS). Below is a video, although strongly in favour of Montessori schools, it displays the key differences between the traditional system compared to Montessori.
Also, below is a video explaining what a FS is and what it provides to the children taking part.
Based on ideas from both Montessori and FS, this alternative is built around the themes: freedom, individuality, and democracy. Firstly, is the discussion of how ideas from Montessori and FS incorporate freedom.
Research from Coates and Pimlott-Wilson (2019) has shown that FS has shown themes, one being a break from routine. This is due to children being given a chance to freely take part in activities, learn through free play and help with interest in the environment around them. Also, child-led learning is encouraged, which provides children with the opportunity to be imaginative and take part in exploratory activities (O’Brien, 2009). This puts the child in charge, by allowing a child to choose the activity. O’Brien (2009) also states that if children are given the chance to take control of what they do, they will be more focused on completing the task, and due to being interested, they will concentrate for long periods.
FS brings exploratory learning and activities based on play, and a place where children can participate in long term tasks (O’Brien, 2009), which is less likely in the current system. Furthermore, Coates and Pimlott-Wilson (2019) clarify that it is significant that children have experiences that are meaningful and relevant to them to learn. Therefore, FS giving children freedom can in effect help children learn more efficiently.
With a Montessori system in place, Children are allowed to make their own choice on what they do with their time, which includes how long they spend on an activity to what activity they choose to do (Marshall, 2017). Montessori saw that children make constructive choices when they are left to make their own decision (Lillard, 2018). This shows that giving children a choice is beneficial as Moffitt et al (2011; cited in Lillard, 2018) states that executive function helps with development, which is crucial in primary school children.
Observing children is an important feature in Montessori school. It is important to discover what a child was interested in, and what they need help with (Brehoney, 2000). By observing children’s activity, it gives them the choice to do what they wish with their time in education and allows the teacher to see what interests them so they can create an environment that will spark their curiosity. Montessori (2015) explained that without giving freedom to individuals, personality cannot develop, showing that this approach to education takes into consideration all aspects of an individual, which links in with the next value of this alternative, which is individuality.
One purpose of Montessori was to help individuals reach their full potential, not just having the ability to pass tests (Lillard, 2018). This shows that this alternative considers all aspects of the individual, which contrasts with the current education system, where the focus is on success in academic subjects (Marshall, 2017). Montessori described one of her practices ‘auto-education’ (Brehony, 2000, p. 117) which shows the theme individuality. This method allows teachers to provide different approaches to each student based on what they need guidance with, as opposed to the same approach to everyone in the class like the traditional system (Brehony, 2000). Decisions of what to teach are made from observing the children (Marshall, 2017). Observing the children allows the teacher to see what their interests are, and how to guide them. This shows individuality as the observations allow teachers to find out more about their students other than exam results.
Another important aspect of Montessori was the environment (Mooney, 2013). A Montessori classroom would have prepared stations for children to work on individually (Brehoney, 2000), and through careful observation, the teacher would know what interests the children and create the environment based on that. This demonstrates that ideas from the Montessori system are based on individuality, and the environment plays a significant role.
Research from Coates and Pimlott-Wilson (2019) has shown that children do not feel restricted when participating in FS. one child stated that being in a classroom setting made them feel controlled as they must behave in a suitable manner for the classroom. However, in FS they believe the outdoors brings out their true self. This shows that children find it easier to express themselves in a less restricted environment.
Also, FS aimed to build up skills such as confidence, motivation, and self-esteem due to engagement with local woodland areas (Pimlott-Wilson and Coates, 2019). It is important to build up skills such as motivation and confidence in children due to evidence that if a child believes that they are poor learners, it can cause negative behaviours (Swarbrick, Eastwood and Tutton, 2004). Therefore, FS allows children to take charge and build confidence.
According to O’Brien (2009), FS can have a positive effect on a wide range of children, which shows its versatility to cater to specific needs. Furthermore, the FS environment allows teachers to identify the individual learning styles of the children (O’Brien and Murray, 2007). This displays that this alternative does not try and teach the children the same way, and it is important to identify how a child learns best for them to progress. Another important theme to be discussed concerning alternative ideas is democracy.
Democratic schools allow children to make their own decisions and to take responsibility for the decisions they decide to make (Carnie, 2017). It can be argued that children from traditional schools learn to be controllable, as opposed to Montessori where children become supportive of each other and imaginative (Williams and Keith, 2000). Children can move around and talk while they work which is not usually allowed in the current system. Montessori believed that children could make their own choices if adults provided the opportunity, which also displays what is require for them to progress (Williams and Keith, 2000).
Krough (1984) stated that Montessori believed that young children were able enough to practice democracy, direct their learning, have self-discipline, and put the whole group first, and succeed for that. Furthermore, Krough (1984) also explained that for a democracy to work in an educational setting, teachers must let the children have some of the power they have for children to take on responsibilities. In the current system, instead of students being given a role to practice democracy, the involvement the current system offers is superficial (Miretzky, 2004). This shows that there is a need to practice democracy in a more effective way than the current system is attempting to.
As mentioned earlier, the environment is very important in a Montessori classroom, and it is organised in a way that would potentially produce a democracy (Krough, 1984). Examples include, children of different ages in the same class, limited teachers and instead of being given toys, they are given real life tools to look after. Unlike the traditional system, the Montessori method according to William and Keith (2000) allows children to be involved in framing the process which makes the children feel valued and helps with their wellbeing.
Overall, ideas from Montessori and FS do show the themes of this primary alternative. Freedom is shown in FS as it allows the child to take charge, so they learn through interest, and due to this, they are more focused on what they are doing. This is similar in Montessori schools, as they choose what they do and how long for. Also, observing children is key to this being successful so teachers can set up the environment based on children’s interests. With individuality, Montessori considers all aspects of the individual and incorporates different approaches for different students so they can learn in the best possible way. FS allows children to express themselves as classrooms can feel restricting towards young children. It also builds up motivation and self-esteem. Lastly, democracy is shown in both Montessori and FS as children are the verdicts of what they do in the setting. It is believed that young children are capable enough to practice democracy, but the right environment is crucial for a democracy to work.
References:
Brehony, K.J. (2000) Montessori, individual work and individuality in the elementary school classroom. History of Education, 29(2), pp. 115-128.
Carnie, F. (2017) Alternative approaches to Education: A guide for teachers and parents. 2nd ed. Oxon, Routledge.
Coates, J.K. and Pimlott‐Wilson, H. (2019) Learning while playing: Children’s forest school experiences in the UK. British Educational Research Journal, 45(1), pp. 21-40.
Excellent Montessori (2013) Montessori Vs. Conventional School [Internet Video]. Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NGRpzQ9vCE&feature=youtu.be [Accessed 17th April 2020].
Krogh, S.L. (1984) Preschool Democracy: Ideas from Montessori. The Social Studies, 75(4), pp. 178-181.
Lillard, A.S. (2018) Rethinking education: Montessori’s approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(6), pp. 395-400.
Marshall, C. (2017) Montessori education: a review of the evidence base. npj Science of Learning, 2(1), pp. 1-9.
Miretzky, D. (2004) The communication requirements of democratic schools: Parent-teacher perspectives on their relationships. Teachers College Record, 106(4), pp. 814-851.
Montessori, M. (2015) The Education of the Individual. NAMTA Journal, 40(2), pp. 15-28.
Mooney, C.G. (2013) Theories of Childhood: An introduction to Dewey, Montessori, Erikson, Piaget and Vygotsky. 2nd ed, St Paul, Redleaf Press.
O’Brien, L. (2009) Learning outdoors: the Forest School approach. Education 3–13, 37(1), pp. 45-60.
O’Brien, L. and Murray, R. (2007) Forest School and its impacts on young children: Case studies in Britain. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 6(4), pp. 249-265.
Swarbrick, N., Eastwood, G. and Tutton, K. (2004) Self‐esteem and successful interaction as part of the forest school project. Support for Learning, 19(3), pp. 142-146.
Williams, N. and Keith, R. (2000) Democracy and Montessori education. Peace Review, 12(2), pp. 217-222.
Woodland Classroom (2015) What is Forest School? [Internet video]. Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmG5HG8A1hc [Accessed 17th April 2020].