Approaches to Homeschool: Montessori

Dear Reader,

As a part of my continuing series on different approaches to homeschooling, I am now going to look at Montessori education. This method is named for its founder, Maria Montessori, who worked during the first half of the twentieth century. Maria called her approach “scientific pedagogy.” Her work was done initially with disabled children, but she later expanded her method to apply it to normal children as well. Over time, she developed a system of four periods of development which she believed children went through. Her emphasis was on providing children with real experiences, for example allowing them to cook instead of playing with toy food. While children in a Montessori classroom are given a lot of freedom to pursue their own interests without interruption, the environment is also a controlled one in which the teacher plays a large role as a guide.

The four questions I am asking of each of these methods are:

1. What do they assume about how learning works?

2. How do they view children?

3. How do they view human nature?

4. What do they believe is the goal of education?

The first question is the easiest to get at with Montessori education because this method is, first and foremost, a theory about how education works. Maria Montessori believed that children would naturally develop in appropriate ways if they were given the right environments and stimuli. I see this as a somewhat middle of the road approach. It is not as hands-off as unschooling. On the other hand, it is not as structured as classical education.

It is easy to see initial similarities with Charlotte Mason’s method. Charlotte and Maria (we are all on a  first name basis, you know) were near contemporaries and so perhaps we should not be surprised to find some similarities. Both put some burden on the teacher but also say that the student has a natural tendency to develop which is merely being aided. Both also speak of exposing children to real things and of the value of  purposeful activities.  In truth, I think the similarities between these two is often at the level of language but that deep down they really diverged quite a bit. I could do another whole post on this, and perhaps I will at some point.

We begin to see some of the differences when we turn to the second question, the view of the child. The Montessori approach, like classical education, sees a development as the child ages. The stages are different, but the idea of progression through various stages is present in both.

In the Montessori system, there are four stages. In the first six years of life, the child is very responsive to their environment and is absorbing much. Between ages six and twelve, they are very social and are also developing morally and intellectually. In the third stage, till age 18, there is some psychological instability but also creative development and a sense of self. The last stage, from ages 18 through 24, is when a person begins to influence the world around them and to lead others. This emphasis on leadership reminds me a little more of the Thomas Jefferson model of education than of the usual classical model.

But I have some of the same issues with these stages that I have had with all the other models that speak of developmental stages. Yes, of course, there are some changes as children grow. But personally, I do not like the divisions into distinct stages. I think more often there is a lot of overlap and while some abilities are more easily seen as a child grows, they are still there in the early years as well. Furthermore, I think when we approach education with these stages (whatever they may be depending on the approach) in mind, we unconsciously limit children. If, for example, we do not expect reasoning and logic skills at age 7, we are likely not to find these things or to overlook them when they are present. Children respond to our expectations. We serve them best by remembering that they are first and foremost complete human beings.

I also wonder what the prepared environments of the Montessori approach say about children and about education in general. If children develop naturally and along appropriate lines when in a Montessori environment, how did they develop before Maria Montessori came along? This is one of the areas in which Charlotte Mason and Maria Montessori sound similar on the surface. Charlotte speaks of atmosphere and Maria of environment. The wording seems similar, but the ideas are different. Miss Mason specifically rejects environments ” especially adapted and prepared” for children [“Charlotte Mason’s 20 Principles,” principle #6]. The difference to me is that Charlotte spoke of setting children’s feet in a large room, that is of giving them many relationships with and interests in things from the vast world available to us. Maria, in contrast, takes the world and selects parts, scales them down to child-size, and then presents them to children in a controlled environment. The first approach is expansive; the second is limiting.

What does this say about the view of children in Montessori education? I do think this approach respects the child to a certain extent. It lets them pursue their interests within the environment. It honors their personalities in that it does not forced them into a set curriculum or a certain schedule. But it also confines them. It does not open the whole world to them but only a subset selected by the experts.

The third question deals with human nature as a whole (you didn’t know your educational philosophy was so profound did you? but that is exactly why we must ask what is behind each of these).  I don’t pick up large moral statements from the Montessori approach, no grand ideas about sinfulness or innate goodness. But I do think I am getting a hint of some sort of assumption hiding back there which says “we know better than you.” This approach requires a certain environment and also teachers specifically trained to apply this method. So what does that say about the rest of us? Those not trained as Montessori teachers and those not reared in a Montessori school? Do we not develop “naturally” as we should? I feel that the very scientificness of this approach tends to a sort of elitism that says “we, the experts, know best.” And while it pays some homage to the uniqueness of each child, it still does not allow the child the whole world. It says that we can pick for you what experiences and encounters you have. Which again smacks of elitism to me, the idea that some know better than others.

The final question I ask is what the goal of this method of education is. Montessori schools are much more common for younger children, and Maria herself did not get to write as  much on the later stage of development. So to a certain extent it can be hard to say where this is all going. She speaks of leadership and influence in the last stage which again reminds me of the TJEd school the goal of which is to create leaders. But I do not get the feeling that that is the primary goal here. The development itself seems to be the major focus of the Montessori system. This makes sense if we remember that her system grew out of her work with developmentally challenged children. For them, the main concern probably would be primarily to just develop as much as possible and along normal lines.

And what is the end result of good development? Maria Montessori spoke in grand terms of world peace. She lived, you may remember, in a time of great conflict. No doubt many asked how things could come to such a pass and how we could prevent future wars. Maria’s answer seems to have been that if only we could raise children to develop along the right lines, they would produce a more peaceful world. So actually, I do think the Montessori school has something to say about human nature. It is that if only we were educated in the right ways, according to the appropriate scientific methodologies, we could avoid he evil that we saw in ourselves in the likes of WWI. It says that human evil is not necessary but that it can be cured with education.

You can probably tell I am not  a big fan of the Montessori approach to education. But I will give her the prize for highest goal. World peace tops the list.


While I have not quoted many sources directly in this post, I have referred to many. Here are some:

Charlotte Mason, Montessori, and Children with Disabilities,” from the Common Room

Montessori Education,” from Wikipedia

Montessori FAQ’s,” from

Montessori Homeschooling

Maria Montessori,” from Wikipedia

03/21/2017 — I just ran across this article by Miss Mason herself in which she discusses the Montessori approach at more length than I have seen elsewhere: “Three Educational Idylls

15 responses to this post.

  1. […] to homeschool (see the intro, unschooling, CM education, classical, TJEd, Christian classical, Montessori, and the Puritans’ Home School Curriculum, not to mention some follow-ups and related […]


  2. […] Along with the editors of Ambleside Online, I also detect here a rejection of the approach of her contemporary, Maria Montessori. […]


  3. […] in. Charlotte Mason rejects this idea (in her case it seems to be a thinly veiled reference to the Montessori method of education). But I think we also do this. What this sub-chapter really made me think about was the […]


  4. […] seen also in the writings of Charlotte’s contemporary and fellow educator, Maria Montessori. For Montessori the whole point of education was world peace.  While they overlapped, I believe Charlotte began before Montessori and certainly her earlier […]


  5. […] You can also read my post on Montessori education here. […]


  6. Posted by Pat Mclaughlin on February 10, 2018 at 6:29 pm

    This piece was a pleasure to read. There is certainly much to what you have said. I would point out that Maria Montessori, herself, did not write that children needed to go to a Children’s House to develop normally. In addition to being a medical doctor she was a professor of anthropology, and describes village life in various ways as meeting the developmental needs of a child that are more often than not neglected in a modern city. She believed that a Children’s House could meet those needs. Personally, I read one book about Montessori (The Science Behind the Genius) when my children were very young and began to implement the principles described without any special equipment. My daughter was washing dishes for twenty minutes at a time at age three. By age four she was making my morning coffee. When she turned five I put my oldest into a Montessori Casa and was told by the adult that it was quite unusual because she behaved exactly like a child who had always been in Montessori would have: she worked with concentration and satisfaction and was a well-behaved child, although she did not know the academics like coloured number beads and the moveable alphabet.

    You also mentioned that Montessori did not write much about the older child. She writes most about the 3-6 year old, then the 6-12 year old, very little about the 12-18 year old, and just a few statements about the 18-24 year old. I’ve read criticism by Charlotte Mason of Maria Montessori’s method, by name, for the 3-6 year old, and it’s quite apparent 1) that Mason did not like the method except for the emphasis on the child doing the work and the adult taking a back seat, and 2) that Mason’s information about the method was largely incomplete and somewhat inaccurate. In later years Montessori and her son developed the method for the elementary child, and I would go so far as to suggest there is more in common between Montessori and Mason’s approach to the elementary child than there is in conflict.


    • Thanks for your comments. It has been a while since I did this post and it’s not all fresh in my head. They were contemporaries and I think that contributes to both the similarities (both products of their time) and the antagonism –from CM’s side; Montessori seems to have quite gotten under her skin. I know I read an article more recently in which she takes aim at Montessori. I will see if I can find it again.


      • Looking back, I think the article I had in mind is “the Three Educational Idylls” which I already linked to in a note at the end of this post.


      • Posted by Pat McLaughlin on February 10, 2018 at 10:19 pm

        As CM points out, Montessori was quite the celebrity worldwide. CM probably disliked the gratuitous adulation she saw in publications. I agree that much of their similarities were probably due to sources that they had in common, directly or indirectly. Montessori was a very widely read person and it’s quite possible she was directly influenced by Mason. Regarding methodical direct instruction, I have seen that Engelmann’s method is nearly identical to Montessori’s, and he sourced his from Mill. That is to say, there were ideas that got around in the 19th and 20th centuries that we have long forgotten.


  7. […] movement, particularly in the view that there are three stages through which a child progresses. Montessori schooling would also fit here as above all it seems to be about molding the child and developing […]


  8. […] his depravity. Charlotte Mason (CM) worked in this period (though beginning a bit earlier) as did Maria Montessori and Rudolf Steiner, founder of the Waldorf […]


  9. […] education itself is not salvific. So many philosophies of education aim to save man (the goal of Montessori education, for instance, is no less than world peace). God’s truth, beauty, and goodness — are in […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s