Montessori Education: Abiding Contributions and Contemporary Challenges

Author(s): David Elkind

Source: Young Children, Vol. 38, No. 2 (January 1983), pp. 3-10
Published by: National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42721000
Accessed: 14-03-2016 23:27 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Young Children.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Mon, 14 Mar 2016 23:27:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

David Elkind

Montessori Education:

Abiding Contributions and

Contemporary Challenges
Maria Montessori was one of the great
contributors to the philosophy and practice of early childhood education. Like

most innovators, her work met with two

different reactions, both of them extreme.

One was rejection, as seen in the scathing

attack on Montessori by Kilpatrick (1914)
which for decades greatly impeded her ac-

ceptance in the United States. The other

reaction was one of orthodox acceptance

which saw Montessori's work as the final

culture from America, and some of her

ideas and practices reflect the times in

which she worked and the children with

whom she interacted. To try and make

those ideas and practices conform to contemporary children and culture seems to
ignore the growth of knowledge and society, and the very real differences that mark

children of different generations and of

different cultures.

Accordingly, in this article I would like

word in early childhood education. De-

to evaluate Montessori education from the

viation from her conceptions and practices

perspective of those features which have

proved valid across time and place, and
those which may need to be changed as a
result of new knowledge and circumstances. I suggest that we look at Montessori from the perspective of science -

was anathema, while loyal support was

rewarded by entrance into special circles.

From a developmental, or scientific

standpoint, neither extreme position is
warranted. Montessori has made significant contributions to early childhood education for which she should be recognized
and appreciated. Many of these contributions, such as child-sized furniture, have

been absorbed into early childhood education and their origins in Montessori
have long been forgotten. This is, in fact,
the mark of a significant contribution, in
that it has become a part of the accepted

wisdom of a discipline. Montessori's real

contributions need to be recognized,
credited, and appreciated.
On the other hand, an unquestioning
acceptance of all of her views is probably

no longer valid. Montessori worked at a

different time in history and in a different

a perspective that she herself valued great-

ly - and see her work as a foundation on

which to build an ever more solid knowl-

edge base about early childhood, rather

than as a completed edifice that can only

be lived in, not added to. Montessori had

the spirit of growth, not stagnation, and

we who have inherited her legacy must

perpetuate that spirit if we really wish to

honor her memory.

David Elkind, Ph.D., is Professor and

Chair of the Eliot-Pearson Department of
Child Study at Tufts University.

January 1983 3

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Mon, 14 Mar 2016 23:27:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Abiding facets of

Montessori education

Some of Montessori's contributions

seem to have a continuing significance

that holds true, and will hold true for

young children at any time and at any

place. These contributions are attitudinal
as much as factual and conceptual. Indeed
it is the attitudinal contributions that I

wish to stress, because her contributions

in methodology and materials are well

known, such as child-sized chairs and ta-

bles; size-graded blocks, bars, and cylin-

appreciated, and allowed to develop.

A second, closely related, attitude was
that young children are essentially selfdidactic. Young children, in her view,
were entirely capable of learning important concepts from their own spontaneous
activities. From her standpoint, it was unnecessary to force children to learn, or to

employ rewards and punishments. Children who were given materials appropriate to their level of development and designed so that they could get immediate
feedback from their actions learned a great

deal on their own with pleasure and en-

ders; and the strategy of introducing per-

joyment.

children verbal labels.

which, in my opinion, is of equal impor-

ceptual discriminations prior to giving

These attitudinal contributions must be

viewed in context of the historical circumstances in which she lived and worked to

be appreciated. At the turn of the century

we were just coming out of a period in

which the abuse of children in factories

A less well-known attitude, but one

tance, is that teachers are self-didactic too.

Children, of course, are the teacher's

learning materials. And, just as the child

learns through interaction with materials,

the teacher learns through interaction

with children. The reciprocity does not

and in mines was beginning to be recti-

end there. With the Montessori materials

fied. Troubled children were beginning to

be dealt with as mentally ill rather than as
degenerate or possessed by the devil, and

the child discovers that she or he has made

an incorrect arrangement by the fact that

retarded children were being recognized

as such and were given the special educa-

other pieces will not fit. The teacher learns

in the same way. When she or he makes a

tion that they deserved. In short, Montessori came of age in a time of child welfare

their demeanor or in their behavior that

needs, capacities, and rights of children.

This new spirit of enlightenment with

something is amiss. The teacher learns

through observing children, much as the
children learn through observing ma-

reform and of new recognition of the

the result does not look right or because

misstep, the children provide clues in

respect to children was present in all of

terials.

her attitude of repsect for children. Respect

is a complex emotion with equal measures

the modes of child learning and the modes

Montessori's work. First of all there was

I emphasize this interaction between

of teacher learning because it highlights

of love and fear. Montessori cared for chil-

still another Montessori attitude. This at-

dren, not in a romantic way, but rather in

titude is the belief that the modes of learning we engage in as children will determine

a realistic way. She loved their ability to

grow, their curiosity, their energy, and
their spirit of adventure. But she also
feared that these very positive attributes
would be stunted by adults eager to force

children in the direction of more limited

growth and spontaneity. Montessori's respect for children thus grew out of her love

for their many positive qualities and her

fear that these would not be recognized,

the modes of learning we engage in as adults.

Children who learn as a result of their own

activities and without the use of external

rewards and punishments are likely, as

adults, to learn in the same way. The adult

who experienced a Montessori education

will tend to be an independent, self-

starting, and spontaneous learner.

In contrast, children who are trained by

4 Young Children

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Mon, 14 Mar 2016 23:27:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

the use of rewards and punishments, who

do not learn from their own activities but

rather from materials prepared by others,

will acquire quite different patterns of

learning that they too will carry with them

into adulthood. As adults, such individu-

als will not learn from their own experience but only from information provided
by others. And they will not learn spon-

taneously, but only when rewards or

punishments are administered for such
learning. From a Montessori perspective,
the modes of learning acquired in child-

hood reach far beyond the confines of the

classroom.

These attitudes and many others were

gradually translated into an educational
system that we know today as Montessori
education. As I suggested earlier, many of
these attitudes, like the materials that
have derived from them, have become
part of the conventional wisdom of early
childhood education. Nontheless, Mon-

tessori education today is still distinct

from other forms of early childhood education in some ways. I want now to look at
those aspects of Montessori education that

may have been appropriate at the time

Montessori was writing, but which do not

seem so appropriate now.
Some facets of Montessori
education reconsidered

There are several aspects of Montessori

education that probably should be reconsidered in the light of contemporary
knowledge of child development. One of

these issues is the matter of work and

play, another is the exploratory versus the

systematic use of learning materials, and

the last issue has to do with reading instruction.

Work and play

In her writings regarding play, Montessori followed the work of the then popular
Groos (1901a; 1901b) who demonstrated

that in the animal world play among the

young anticipated adult forms of interac-

tion. He argued that child play, such as

playing house, had the same anticipatory

function. From these observations he con-

cluded that the major function of play is to

prepare children for adult life.

Montessori took up this conception and

translated it into the more simple formula,

namely, that "play is the child's work."

From a Montessori perspective, however,
only those forms of play that had an adap-

tive, preparatory function were acceptable. Other forms of imaginative play

were not admissible because they took
children away from adaptive learning and
play activities and were really of very little
value. To this day, fantasy activity tends

to be discouraged in Montessori schools.

The problem, or so it seems to me, derives from the failure to recognize that
play can serve a number of different func-

tions. From a Piagetian perspective, for

example, play is pure assimilation. That is,

when children engage in play they come

to realize their personal abilities in the
sense that they transform the world to

adapt it to their needs. Such play, in moderation, is valuable insofar as it helps the

child realize herself or himself as an indi-

vidual. Play in adulthood has the same

function; it is geared toward individual
expression and self-realization.
In the broad sense, then, play is indeed
a preparation for adult life, if adult life is

seen as including self-expression and

self-realization as well as social adapta-

tion. From this standpoint, fantasy play is

simply a preparation for adult play and

should be part of the child's educational
experience. The identification of work
with play, of individual realization with
social adaptation, is unfortunate because
it makes life all one-sided - all social adaptation. In fact, of course, work or social

adaptation activities are more successful

and rewarding when they are balanced

with self-realization activities. This is

true for all types of work, from housekeeping and coal mining to running a big

January 1983 5

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Mon, 14 Mar 2016 23:27:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

'S

X
cu
u

<D

50

S
While some aspects of the Montessori teaching of reading are valuable , the failure to distinguish between
identity and equivalence decoding may cause hardship in some children.

corporation.
This view of play, however, is not readi-

ly accepted by Montessori practitioners.

What seems to have happened is that a

ality. When they become old enough to

appreciate this deception, so this argument runs, they will be angry at the adults

who deceived them and will not trust

whole group of secondary rationalizations

has grown up to support keeping fantasy

them again in the future.

alizations were to be recognized for what

child's mode of thinking. Children do not

they are - constructions to support a course

of action that is not fully believed in - then
it may be easier to give them up, or at least

animate, much less between various forms

out of Montessori schools. If these ration-

to be aware of their defensive nature.

One of the constructions used to defend

the absence of fantasy in Montessori

schools is that fantasy is essentially dis-

honest. Stories about animals who talk, or

witches who fly, or ogres who breathe fire

are dishonest because they do not exist.

By presenting children with such materi-

als we are being dishonest because we are

presenting them with a false picture of re-

But another way of looking at fantasy

activity is as an expression of the young

distinguish between animate and in-

of animate life. If they can talk, have intentions, and so on, so can animals.
Likewise, young children have no sense of

the limits of what adults can do. If they

can fly airplanes, why can't they fly them-

selves? And if you can build fires, why

can't you breathe fire? In the young child's

world almost anything is possible, and

fantasy material speaks to this mode of
thought.

It still might be argued, however, that

6 Young Children

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Mon, 14 Mar 2016 23:27:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

even if such a mode of thought is present

in children, it should not be encouraged

by reading fantasy material to children or
by allowing them to create their own fan-

tasies. But such a stance ignores a very

important dynamic of intellectual growth

which elsewhere (Elkind 1976) I have
called the age dynamism. One of the mechanisms which encourages cognitive growth

is the discovery of previously held ideas

that are no longer acceptable. When a
child says "I used to believe in the tooth
fairy, but I know now it was my parents,"
she or he is taking a certain pride in giving
up childish ideas. It is a prominent sign of
growing up. Rather than charging parents
with dishonesty, discovery of the falsity of

previously held ideas fills children with

the pride of intellectual maturity. When
we deprive children of fantasy we also deprive them of an important marker of intellectual development.
In addition to the dishonesty argument
against fantasy, there is the waste-of-time

argument. Television is the culprit most

often invoked in this argument. Much of
the fantasy on television is not very good,

and much of it is indeed a waste of time.

But is it really fair to denegrate all fantasy

because some of it is bad? And is it fair to

hold children responsible for wasting

their time when parents permit excessive

should regard the desire to work as

harmful. The desire for play and for work

are both healthy and important. They

need to be realized in appropriate ways

and in reasonable amounts. That is what

good early childhood education is all

about.

Structure and freedom

in the use of materials
A second area in which Montessori edu-

cation has to be reconsidered is the use of

materials. The Montessori materials are

extraordinary in that they are so nicely

suited to the intellectual needs of children

at certain age periods. Elsewhere (Elkind

1976) I have suggested that when young
children's activities are in the process of
formation, they seek stimulus nutriment

to further the attainment of those abilities.

Stimulus nutriment consists of such

things as size-graded materials upon

which children can practice their quantitative abilities and sets of materials upon

which children can practice their developing classification skills.

There is no question then, at least to my
mind, of the intrinsic value of the Montes-

sori materials for the mental growth of

young children. Where I do have ques-

television watching? To be sure, fantasy

tions, however, is in the ways the materials have come to be used. First of all, let

can be corrupting if it takes too much of a

child's time and is of poor quality, but the

that children should be shown how to use

same could be said for work. I am not con-

vinced that having four-year-old children

do work sheets for hours on end is less

corrupting than watching television. What

is at issue, or should be, is not work or
play but inappropriate work and inappropriate fantasy.

In short, I do not believe that just because the child's desire for fantasy is
abused and exploited by television we
should reject the desire itself as bad or
harmful. In the same way, I do not believe
that just because a child's desire for work

is exploited and abused by some highpressure early childhood programs we

me say that I believe, with Montessori,

the materials and not just be allowed to
mess around with them. It is important
that children use the blocks of the pink

tower to build a tower and not as missiles

to be hurled at other children. The value of
the blocks is lost if children do not learn

the size relationships that are apparent as

a consequence of putting the blocks into a
tower.

Accordingly, my disagreement with the

way Montessori materials are used is not

with their employment at the beginning of

instruction. When children are first intro-

duced to the materials it is important that

they learn to use them in a structured way.

January 1983 7

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Mon, 14 Mar 2016 23:27:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

On the other hand, once children can

build a pink tower with ease, they should

an important prerequisite to later, vertical

integration - to the attainment of higher

be allowed to use the blocks to build new

order abilities.

constructions if they so desire. To my

Accordingly, what I am suggesting - and

what I do not think is practiced in traditional Montessori programs - is that chil-

mind, the use of materials in a structured

way should be the prelude to using them

in a more free, experimental way.
Again, this conclusion derives from de-

velopmental theory. In my discussion of

structural development (Elkind 1976) I
suggest that the early phase in the construction of new abilities (stimulus nutri-

ment seeking) is often expressed in repetitive acitivities, such as those engaged

in by children learning the Montessori

dren be allowed to experiment with the

materials once they have mastered their
appropriate usage. It seems wrong to me
that children should only be allowed to
build a pink tower with blocks that could
be used constructively in many other ways.

Structure should always be a preparation

for freedom, not an end in itself, and free-

dom is always the preparation for new

materials. Once children have mastered

structure. A new idea has to be tested in

the materials, however, it is also important that they be allowed to express this
mastery by using the materials in new
ways so as to discover new relationships.
Let me give an example to illustrate
what I mean. When a two-year-old first
learns to go down a slide, she or he does
this in a very structured and repetitive
way. After the child has mastered the
slide, however, she or he begins to go
down sideways, backwards, and so on. At

systematic ways to be verified.

I am well aware that the structured use

of the Montessori materials grew out of

their misuse. And again, I want to emphasize that I entirely agree with their
structured use at the beginning of instruction. My point is only that children

who have mastered the materials be al-

lowed to use them more freely. This new

freedom is an earned freedom, unlike the

unearned freedom of throwing materials

before they are mastered. This earned

this stage in their learning, children begin

to experiment because they have mastered

freedom is constructive and valuable and

the fundamentals. Their new freedom is

should not be confused with the unearned

built upon their previously structured

freedom that is not. Earned freedom to ex-

activities. But that freedom to explore materials that have been mastered in a repetitive way is important too - it is an expression of mastery.
In effect, what children are doing when
they begin to experiment with an acquired

Reading instruction

skill is to elaborate that skill in the hori-

zontal direction. A child who has learned

to count, for example, will try to count everything that she or he can lay a hand on.
This is elaborating the ability in the horizontal direction, on new materials at the

same level of difficulty. A child who

builds a train or a series of small towers

periment with materials should be encouraged in Montessori schools.

The last issue with which I wish to deal

is reading. There is much that I admire in

Montessori's approach to reading. In particular, I believe that starting children

with meaningful words rather than with
books makes very good sense. The first

lesson children learn is that words convey

meaning. What Montessori helps children
do, therefore, is to first acquire a conception of what reading is all about. Learning

with the pink tower is doing the same

a number of sight words is an essential

thing; she or he is elaborating the size re-

early learning skill.

So too is early writing. Learning to print
letters engages another modality and en-

lationships in new horizontal ways. And

to my mind this horizontal elaboration,
which follows upon mastery of a skill, is

hances the child's discrimination of letter

8 Young Children

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Mon, 14 Mar 2016 23:27:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

forms. It also gives her or him a familiarity

with the written word that helps to make
it less foreign and strange. And, finally,

children find it easier and enjoy it more

when they hear or read what they them-

dren to recognize that vowels associated

with other vowels can be sounded differ-

ently than when they appear alone. The

letter o, multiplied by the letter w, gives
the diphthong ow which is different from

selves have written rather than what

both, oroXw = o+ w + ow.

others have put down. So I really have no

quarrel at all with these aspects of Montessori reading training.

What I think sometimes happens in

Montessori teaching of reading, as in
much public school teaching, is that this
distinction between identity and equivalence decoding is overlooked. Because
children can do identity decoding, it is
automatically assumed that they can do
equivalence decoding. In English, at least,
this is not the case. Consequently, some
children may be moved into equivalence
decoding before they have attained the
requisite cognitive abilities. Some children may be defeated by this experience
while others may acquire habits (such as
rote learning) that may have to be un-

What has to be remembered, however,

is that Montessori was working with the

Italian language that is more phonetic
than is English - the sound-to-symbol correspondences are more regular and there
are accent signs to indicate pronunciation of certain vowels. In contrast, English

has 26 letters that can be combined in

more than 200 different ways to symbolize

some 44 basic phonemes.

Accordingly, in transferring a method

used to teach Italian to the teaching of English there are bound to be some dislocations. Elsewhere (Elkind 1979) I have distinguished between identity decoding and
equivalence decoding. In identity decoding

there is a one-to-one correspondence be-

tween symbol and sound in the sense that

a letter is always sounded in the same

way. Sight words usually involve identity

decoding as does learning the names of

the letters. From a cognitive point of view,

identity decoding requires only discrimi-

nation and association and is well within

the mental competencies of young chil-

dren.

As soon as one moves to words wherein

the same letter can be sounded in different

ways, however, one moves to equivalence

decoding. From a cognitive point of view
equivalence decoding requires logical op-

erations that most children do not have

well in hand by the age of six or six-and-

one-half. These operations, which Piaget

calls concrete operations, enable children
to logically "multiply" and "add" letters
and sounds. For example, logical addition
allows children to grasp that the class of

a's includes the subclass of short a's and

the subclass of long a's, a = a + . Likewise, logical multiplication allows chil-

learned later.

So, while some of Montessori reading

instruction appears well founded, other
parts do not. We should retain the practice

of introducing children to meaningful

function words such asgo, stop , etc. and to

writing their own books before they start
on primers. But at the same time, it is well
to avoid moving children into equivalence

decoding before they give evidence of

having attained concrete operations. At-

tainment of such operations is manifested

spontaneously in the use of comparative

terms, bigger , smaller ; in playing games

with rules; in the understanding of subor-

dinate classes (boys + girls = children);

and many other behaviors.

Summary and conclusion

Some aspects of Montessori's program
seem to me to have abiding value, and
others need to be re-examined in the light

of contemporary knowledge. Much of

Montessori's program has already been
incorporated into the conventional wisdom of early childhood education. Some
attitudes of lasting value advocated by

January 1983 9

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Mon, 14 Mar 2016 23:27:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Montessori still need to be highlighted.

These include respect for children, a recognition that they and teachers are both

TO PRESERVE
YOUR COPIES OF

self-didactic, and the belief that modes of

Young

learning acquired in childhood are carried

over into later life.

Children

Some aspects of Montessori education

should be re-examined in the light of
contemporary knowledge. The denegration of fantasy in Montessori education
may deprive children of an important
mechanism of mental growth. Likewise,

children who have learned to use Montes-

sori materials in the prescribed way

should be allowed to explore them in new
and experimental ways. Finally, while
some aspects of the Montessori teaching
of reading are valuable, the failure to distinguish between identity and equivalence decoding may cause hardship to

some children.

This article highlights some of Montes-

sori's abiding contributions, but also

challenges some established practices in
Montessori education. The suggested alterations in educational practice were made

out of respect for Montessori's primary

commitment to the best possible experi-

ence and education for children. It is be-

cause the suggested alterations in classroom practice will be to the benefit of

children that I believe they are Montesso-

A choice of handsome and durable li-

brary files - or binders - for your copies

of Young Children . Both styles bound in
burgundy library fabric and stamped in
gold leaf.
Files

Each file holds 12 issues. Price per file is

$5.95; three for $17.00; six for $30.00.

Prices include postage. (Add $2.50 each

outside U.S., U.S. currency)
Binders

Each binder holds 12 issues. Issues open

flat. Price per binder $7.50; three for
$21.75; six for $42.00. Prices include

postage. (Add $2.50 each outside U.S.,

rian in the very best and truest sense of

U.S. currency)

References

DO NOT SEND THIS ORDER FORM TO NAEYC.

SEND TO:

that word. 3

Elkind, D. Child Development and Education.

New York: Oxford University Press, 1976.

Elkind, D. "Beginning Reading: A Stage Structural Analysis." Childhood Education 55 (1979):
248-252.

Groos, K. The Play of Animals. New York: Appleton, 1901(a).

Groos, K. The Play of Man. New York: Appleton, 1901(b).
Kilpatrick, W. H. The Montessori System Examined. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1914.
Copyright 1983, David Elkind.

Requests for

single reprints and permission to reproduce

multiple copies should be addressed to the
author, 29 Concord Ave., #701, Cambridge,
MA 02138. Single reprints are available from

Jesse Jones Industry

P.O. Box 5120

Philadelphia, PA 19141
Please send me

files binders
Enclosed is $

NAME

(please print)
ADDRESS

CITY

STATE

Satisfaction guaranteed or money refunded.

Allow at least 6 weeks for delivery.

the author at no charge.

10 Young Children

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Mon, 14 Mar 2016 23:27:06 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions