Gifted Kids and Montessori: A Troubling Disconnect
This post may be controversial. Even to me, it has a faint hint of elitism in it, which is often found in writings about gifted education. I think it’s because of the anti-intellectual environment that pervades our culture. If I was writing about athletic talent, I don’t think there would be near the controversy. Still, note that I write to reflect my current reasoning, to highlight my own conceptual change on a topic dear to my heart. Like my beloved Neil Postman, however, I reserve the right to change my mind :-)
As a child development specialist, I love Montessori education when it is done well. It is developmentally appropriate for young children, encouraging a deep love of learning and the development of sound conceptual understanding of key mathematical ideas, science, and language. I include Maria Montessori as Piaget’s equal in my human development classes and have written a glowing review of her principles in a published review of Lillard’s seminal text on the subject.
That said, something about my own observations of multiple Montessori schools and the comments from parents of gifted and academically talented kids have been troubling me for a while. I don’t have the usual complaints about Montessori that many do, concerning her lack of interest in fostering imagination and creativity. Though I think it’s a valid issue, many current Montessori schools do allow for creative expression, and many parents encourage this as well. One major concern of mine is the passive role of teachers in a true Montessori classroom. Although I strongly embrace the idea of giving students plenty of opportunities for self-determination in the classroom (it’s one of they key principles of the elementary school I founded), I am a Vygostkian at heart, and I believe a good teacher is a critical part of challenging a child to test out and move beyond his/her limitations, naive dislikes, and initial inclinations. Too many children enrolled in Montessori schools end up ignoring subjects that they initially dislike, focusing on their preferences. What ends up happening is that a child inclined to read becomes a stronger reader, even reading at a younger age then if she were enrolled in a traditional school. In math, however, she may end up falling behind because of no one encouraging her to persevere in spite of initial difficulties. Gifted children, who are especially prone to giving up when things are challenging, may be particularly affected by such a laissez-faire environment.
This seems to be what I am hearing from those who have enrolled their children in Montessori schools, particularly if their children are gifted. I started to wonder about this pattern, when I realized something I already knew but had overlooked: Maria Montessori developed her curriculum initially for children with intellectual disabilities. Later, she refined the curriculum with at risk students in impoverished neighborhoods. It’s a perfect curriculum for students who may be reluctant learners — rich in hands on learning experiences, slow and focused, with the ability to move at one’s own pace, exploring interests. It’s also wonderful for preschool children, providing a rich sensory environment with a focus on self-care. The problem is that for gifted children, their interests are so deep and they are often eager to explore these interests to the exclusion of other areas, that they end up lacking in some fundamental skills and sometimes even being bored by the lack of challenge and engagement a more actively involved teacher can provide.
The best analogy I can give comes from sports. (Of course! my students would say. I always use sports metaphors, though I am one of the least sports-oriented folks around.) For kids like me, not gifted with athletic ability, the best sports camp or educational environment is NOT one involving competitive games and fine-tuned practice in skills, strategies, etc. (my entire history in PE classes bears witness to this fact!). That would make me (did make me) hate sports, feel incompetent, and lose interest and self-efficacy for athletic endeavors. I would thrive, however, in an environment that encouraged play and exploration of athletic activities, relishing the chance to try out new things and move on to different things. Perhaps I would find my niche and then choose to explore it more in depth, working my way up to more serious athletic competition, but this would take time and skill development and interest. For a serious, young athlete, though, I can only imagine that such exploration would be boring. She would probably start to organize competitive games where she could shine.
I do not write this as the definitive word on the topic. I still value Montessori schooling, especially for preschool children and those who may initially struggle with intellectual endeavors. For the small minority of kids who are truly academically advanced though, I am beginning to think that a more rigorous and “coach-like” learning atmosphere might be more beneficial to their academic needs.
