Related Posts
There is widespread confusion about the meaning of the word “curriculum.”
One’s approach to curriculum reflects one’s perceptions, values, and knowledge. A curriculum approach reflects a holistic position or a meta-orientation, encompassing curriculum’s foundations (a person’s philosophy, view of history, view of psychology and learning theory, and view of social issues), curriculum domains (common, important knowledge within the field), and curricular theory and practice. An approach expresses a viewpoint about curriculum’s development and design; the role of the learner, teacher, and curriculum specialist in planning curriculum; the curriculum’s goals; and the important issues that need to be examined.
A curriculum approach reflects our views of schools and society. By understanding one’s curriculum approach, and that of one’s school or school district, it is possible to conclude whether one’s professional view conflicts with the formal organizational view. (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009, p. 2)
In the education community at large (that is outside of Montessori), there is widespread agreement among theorists that there is a direct link between individual perceptions, values, and knowledge of each person and the way in which they interpret and implement any curriculum. Studies have highlighted that the behaviors of teachers often contradict their expressed beliefs. Incompatible values and aims are seen as the source for conflicts in education, especially as there is a “failure to recognize conflicting conceptions of curriculum” and to examine “conceptual underpinnings.”(Eisner & Vallance, 1974, pp. 1–2)
While it would seem that an approach such as Montessori would be sufficiently clearly defined to preclude the differing ideological frameworks found in conventional schooling, this is not the case. Differences in the implementation of various aspects of Montessori have been highlighted in a number of studies. For example, Carolyn Daoust (2004) identified different “clusters of practice.” Daungvan Bunnag (2000) identified significant differences in practice even within a single school. Angeline Lillard (2011, 2012) has focused on different opinions amongst Montessori teachers regarding the materials that should be present in the classroom and has highlighted the distinction between what she calls “classic” and “supplemented” implementation practices.
The varying interpretations are evident from the first attempts to apply Dr. Montessori’s work after the success of the San Lorenzo experiments. To use Rita Kramer’s words: “Montessori’s followers had a way of finding in her philosophy whatever it was they were looking for.” (Kramer, 1988, p. 352) Popular arguments have been put forward aligning Montessori with philosophies as disparate at those of Ayn Rand and Paulo Freire. Attempts have been made to integrate Montessori with approaches including the International Baccalaureate, constructivism in its Piagetian and Vygotskian incarnations, including the Reggio Emilia approach and Waldorf. Montessori education briefly held attraction for Mussolini’s Fascists on one hand and the anarchist followers of the Modern School movement on the other. Clearly, it is easy to misconstrue Maria Montessori’s meaning.
Sometimes, this variety is actively celebrated. Referring to Montessori implementation in the Netherlands, one writer describes the diversity of Montessori as “wonderful for the teacher” as it “gives a lot opportunity for the children.” He continues:
“A teacher who has a great interest in Cosmic Education has children working with water and stones or with the faces of the moon. A teacher who has a strong emphasis on fantasy play will have a classroom with children playing in corners, where they practice their free play. When these teachers come together and talk about the Montessori vision, we can see that the second teacher changes her prepared environment and, for example, adds words in the corner, so that the children are stimulated to read. So, within the range of similarity of the Montessori school, we still see that every school is different.(Hendriksen, 2010, p. 21)
Others identify the differences as a major impediment to research into the efficacy of Montessori education. Angeline Lillard’s most recent study focused on the varying results obtained from schools that offer “classic” and “adapted” versions of Montessori. She refers to “variations in Montessori implementation fidelity,” which may impact outcomes. (Lillard, 2012) While the variations may be attributable to different training programs through which teachers are certified, it may be that this trend in Montessori implementation is a result of a more widespread tendency, identified in conventional education and in the application of other alternative approaches. Discussing the distortions found in the implementation of Open Education, Barth (1975, pp. 58–59) suggests that: “… educators who are quick to assimilate new ideas into their cognitive and operations framework, often distort the ideas of practices from the original conception without recognizing either the distortion or the assumptions violated by the distortion. This seems to happen partly because the educator has taken on the verbal abstraction of a new idea without going through a concomitant personal reorientation of attitude and behavior. Vocabulary and rhetoric are easily changed, while practices, people, and institutions often remain little affected.
Teacher beliefs “endure, unaltered, unless deliberately challenged.” (Jensen, 2004, p. 48) These beliefs are often formed early in childhood and are reinforced by prevalent societal beliefs in what Jerome Bruner (1996) called “folk pedagogy.” The great variation in the way in which Montessori principles are interpreted and applied suggests that conflicting belief systems could be in play in Montessori, just as they hamper reform of conventional education. These differences could originate from the different curriculum ideologies that individual teachers bring to their practice of Montessori.
Generally, educators tend not to be consciously and strongly aligned to any particular approach, selecting different approaches to suit situations. (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009, p. 2) This view is supported by Michael Schiro (2008, p. 2), who points out that “the existence of (the differing ideologies) causes difficulty for newcomers to the field, who are usually unaware of them and as a result often have difficulty determining how to philosophically orient themselves, as subscribers to different ideologies pressure them for their allegiance.” While Montessori teachers actively choose to be certified in the Montessori approach and, by implication, identify with at least some of the basic tenets of Montessori, it is unlikely that they are immune to the ideological positions that would have been formed during their own schooling. It is also reasonable to expect that they would be subjected to the same types of ideological pressures that Schiro identifies for conventional educators.
Teachers may also adopt conflicting ideologies when working with students of different ages. For example, teachers who adopt a developmental approach when working at preschool level may shift to a more rigid, academic approach when engaging with older students. Teachers are likely to shift their ideological orientations over time, especially when changing their roles, for example from teacher to school head (Schiro, 2008, pp. 197–211). Again, it is reasonable to suppose that Montessori teachers are similarly influenced.
On one hand, this might suggest a richness and depth in terms of curriculum application, but, in reality, it poses a complex challenge to schools trying to achieve consistency across classes and which are being called to ever-greater levels of accountability by the public at large.
I do not presume to argue which of the varied ideologies of curriculum may be most appropriate, nor to prescribe to schools which ideology to adopt but, rather, hope to create an awareness of the major trends and provide some guidance for schools and individual teachers to assist in identifying which aspects of their interpretation may be impacting on their implementation of the “Montessori curriculum” in an individual school.
“Controversy in educational discourse most often reflects a basic conflict in priorities concerning form and content of curriculum and the goals toward which schools should strive; the intensity of the conflict and the apparent difficulty in resolving it can most often be traced to a failure to recognize conflicting conceptions of curriculum.” (Eisner & Vallance, 1974, pp. 1–2)
The goal is, thus, to achieve some measure of clarity in what is essentially a very muddy pond.
The concept of curriculum
The concept of curriculum has developed significantly over time. The word “curriculum” is drawn from the Latin word originally meaning “a running,” “a race,” “a course,” “race-course,” or a “career.” During the Roman period, it was also used, somewhat obliquely, to refer to content of a literary work (curricula mentis). Teachers in the middle ages were concerned largely with what was to be transmitted and, to a lesser extent, the order in which that was to happen, with very little, if any, formal attention being given to the method of instruction. By the 17th century, the word “curriculum” was being used to apply specifically to the length of a course. By this time, there was already debate over what content was important, but the word “curriculum” was used to signify the container, the period of study, rather than the contents of a course.
The understanding of the word evolved, influenced to some extent by Itard and Seguin (the educators whose work had a formative influence on the educational thinking of Maria Montessori) to incorporate ideas regarding methodology as well as content. (Egan, 1978) Maria Montessori used the words “curriculum” and “syllabus” virtually interchangeably in some of her books. (More accurately, the Italian words she used were translated this way.) In recent years, curriculum theorists have defined “curriculum” to extend to cover much more than the simple content.
Curriculum studies have yielded insights into how people conceive of curriculum and how these understandings impact on classroom practice. It may be that many schools and training institutions, because they do not fully explore this topic, fit Montessori into their own pre-existing curriculum ideologies. Individual teachers may not fully understand, or may understand and deliberately reject, the paradigm adopted by the school. Through not embracing the ideology of the school, teachers may deliberately or inadvertently subvert the school’s goals through the application of methodologies more coherent with their own dominant ideologies.
Although she does not often use the word explicitly, Dr. Montessori had some very definite ideas about curriculum. It certainly was not about lesson plans – not even that set of lessons we now call “Cosmic Curriculum.” Unfortunately, her view is not comprehensively or concisely represented in her published works, and her intentions can only be gleaned from careful analysis of the totality of her work.
Most Montessorians have a sense of what she intended. Almost all Montessori schools have acknowledged the promotion of peace as being central to their curricula, support the ideas of freedom and autonomy to some extent, and promote community and respect as fundamental principles. Schools refer to “Cosmic Education” in respect of the 6 – 12 age groups. By the same token, many schools tend to default to an understanding of curriculum that seems at odds with transformative goals when it comes to areas related to academic learning, adopting the language of either highly academic or standards-based outcomes oriented ideologies.
Impact of the Standards Movement
The growth in influence of the standards movement around the world, which has been accompanied by stronger centralized control of curriculum and high-stakes testing, has resulted in a shift in the language of curriculum texts, as well as in the popular understanding of learning. This has, amongst other things, resulted in the notion that curriculum is something that is “delivered.” Bailey (Bailey, 2010, p. 28) points out that “without philosophical critique, this shifting language goes undetected, as does its impoverishing impact upon educational practice.” This language is already prevalent in Montessori discourse.
We cannot ignore the demands of public accountability and it is not surprising when Montessorians bow to pressure to align the “Montessori curriculum” with state curricula or core standards. According to a number or sources on curriculum theory, in most countries state curricula are designed independently of epistemological or methodological discourse. (Joseph, 2000) Thus, we find the very deliberate and coherent Montessori curriculum being adapted to align with curricula which may have been designed with very different aims in mind.
Furthermore, Montessorians are being called upon to show that our approach is successful. We have to justify our methodology. It seems that the existence of Montessori depends on, to some extent or another, adopting the language of the standards movement. Whether or not it is possible to do this without undermining the integrity of the Montessori program remains to be seen. The real danger is that, given the dominance of a particular lexicon, the ability to even conceive of conflicting paradigms of education may be lost, and we may end up adapting the Montessori curriculum to such an extent that it no longer contains any distinguishing features. Thus, it is essential to critically evaluate what are the features that define the Montessori curriculum and distinguish it from other views of curriculum. Kelly makes a strong argument for conceptual analysis, with the goal of reaching “a proper matching of theory and practice”:
“Concepts such as ‘aims,’ ‘objectives,’ ‘processes,’ ‘approaches,’ ‘standards,’ ‘ability,’ ‘progression,’ ‘continuity,’ ‘coherence,’ ‘evaluation,’ ‘appraisal,’ ‘accountability,’ and even ‘subjects’ or individually named subjects are far from being non-problematic in their meanings just as they are equally far, … from being value free. (Kelly, 2009, p. 29)
A Montessori Curriculum
For some, curriculum is simply the content to be covered. In Montessori this is sometimes seen to be analogous with the albums Montessori teachers produce during training, or even the range of materials on the shelf. For others, it is somewhat more complex — a “scope and sequence.” What these approaches do not overtly acknowledge is that, in the classroom, the individual educator implements the curriculum in accordance with a particular vision and understanding of what learning is, what should be learned, and how it should be learned. What makes these waters very difficult to navigate is that the individual in the classroom, or even the school as a whole, may have a very poorly defined notion of what their curriculum really is.
The danger lies in the lack of awareness that approaches to curriculum are never value neutral. They are the result of ideological stances regarding “education, society, knowledge and, indeed, humanity itself.” (Kelly, 2009, p. 89)
Defining Curriculum
There are multiple definitions of what constitutes curriculum. A starting point is this definition proposed by John Kerr:
“All the learning which is planned and guided by the school, whether it is carried on in groups or individually, inside or outside the school. (Cited by Kelly, 2009, p. 12)
This definition has clear limitations; it refers only to the explicitly planned learning and is integrally linked to the concept of school as an institution. Vic Kelly (2009, p. 7) points out that understanding curriculum only in terms of teaching and learning presents serious challenges if one wants to move past “the most simplistic levels for teaching of a largely unsophisticated and usually unproblematic kind.” On one hand, “curriculum” can simply mean the “subjects taught in schools”; on the other, it can be understood to include the “full range of experiences that individuals require for full participation in society.” (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009, p. 1) Ultimately, the way an individual (or an individual institution) defines the word reflects the approach that will be adopted. That this applies within Montessori, as well, is evident from the numerous documents that define “the” Montessori curriculum or align it to one or another state or national framework.
Montessori education is highly sophisticated and complex and, thus, requires an understanding of curriculum that surpasses the simplistic and unchallenging. A simplistic definition of curriculum as a program of studies “fails to take into account the educational and moral dimensions of the school curriculum.” (Kelly, 2009, p. 7)
From this perspective it is essential that anyone working to define or implement the “Montessori curriculum” undertake a deep exploration of the various ideologies that impact on curriculum and analyze their own beliefs to understand the impact these may be having on practice.
References
Bailey, R. (Ed.). (2010). The Philosophy of Education: An Introduction. London: Continuum.
Barth, R. S. (1975). Open education: Assumptions about children, learning and knowledge. In M. Golby, J. Greenwald, & R. West (Eds.), Curriculum Design. London: Croom Helm /Open University Press.
Bruner, J. (1996). The Culture of Education. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Bunnag, D. (2000). Classroom Adaptation: A Case Study of a Montessori School. In Proceedings of the Lilian Katz Symposium. Presented at the Early Childhood and Parenting (ECAP) Collaborative. Issues in Early Childhood Education: Curriculum, Teacher Education, & Dissemination of Information. Retrieved from http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/%5C/pubs/katzsym/bunnag.pdf
Daoust, C. J. (2004). An Examination Of Implementation Practices In Montessori Early Childhood Education. University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Egan, K. (1978). What Is Curriculum? Curriculum Inquiry, 65–72. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/1179791
Eisner, E. W., & Vallance, E. (Eds.). (1974). Conflicting Conceptions Of Curriculum. Berkely, CA: McCutchan Publishing.
Hendriksen, J. L. (2010). Montessori Education In The Netherlands – An Individual Colour To A Universal Method. Montessori Europe, (1/2), 22 – 25. Retrieved from https://www.montessori-europe.com/more-newsletter
Jensen, M. (2004). Development Of The Early Childhood Curricular Beliefs Inventory: An Inventory To To Identify Preservice Teachers’ Early Childhood Curricular Orientation. Retrieved from Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations. Paper 3530.
Joseph, P. (2000). Conceptualizing curriculum. In P. Joseph, S. Bravmann, M. Windschitl, E. Mikel, & N. Green (Eds.), Cultures of curriculum (pp. 1 – 14). Mahwah, NJ, USA:: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kelly, A. V. (2009). The Curriculum: Theory And Practice (6th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Kramer, R. (1988). Maria Montessori: A biography. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
Lillard, A. S. (2011). What Belongs in a Montessori Primary Classroom? Results from a Survey of AMI and AMS Teacher Trainers. Montessori Life: A Publication of the American Montessori Society, 23(3), 18–32. Retrieved from http://www.montessori-science.org/Lillard_montessori_primary_classroom_survey_AMI_AMS_teacher_trainers.pdf
Lillard, A. S. (2012). Preschool Children’s Development In Classic Montessori, Supplemented Montessori, And Conventional Programs. Journal of School Psychology, 50(3), 379–401. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2012.01.001
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2009). Curriculum: Foundations, Principles, And Issues (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Schiro, M. (2008). Curriculum Theory: Conflicting Visions And Enduring Concerns. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Montessori Leadership / 2013 / p 10
