Ask HN: Anyone go through Montessori education until age 12 (end of grade 6)?

253 points by boringg ↗ HN
Am curious what peoples experiences from Montessori transitioning to other education systems was like and how they perceived the school worked or didn't for then? Have some children decisions and looking for outside opinions! Thanks!

258 comments

[ 5.8 ms ] story [ 321 ms ] thread
I go with montessori with my kids. My older started at the age of 4 and is now 7, I'm very satisfied with results I see (and I don't push for results, I still remember my education and so I take it easy with my kids). My older could read, write, count and do simple math before he went to primary school (which is also following montessori principles). He now picks up simple programming and not because I push him (I encaurage whatever he feels like doing, like playing the piano or playing chess or doing ice scating or football)
Could you share what programming he's doing? Is he using a specific app?
My mom is a Montessori teacher of many many years and I did summercamps as a swim instructor in one. While they are all reviewed by the Montessori board and certified, they are all a bit different. Shop around, the gap in quality between different schools can be quite apparent.

That being said, I would not hesitate to put my kids in one, especially over public schools which are a disaster.

My mother's also a longtime Montessori teacher, and yeah, there’s a lot of variety. Montessori is not a protected trademark. Look for AMI-certified for a school that has to meet some standards. I attended Montessori from 2-14, but have no advice that can be generalized to every kid or school.

But doesn’t the same variety apply for public schools? They’re not all a disaster. My kid goes to a good dual language immersion public school where in addition to academics, they’re learning collaboration and empathy with people from all walks of life, not just the ones whose parents drop them off in a Tesla. The school is underfunded, doesn’t have the resources to market itself, and teachers are burning out, but if some of the hyper-enthusiastic Montessori parents I know applied their energy to a public school, it’d kick ass. That’s the choice I made—I’m on the PTA and am building their makerspace. Others are leading gardening or composting programs. Not everyone has the time to do that, but we shouldn’t be mere consumers of education, as every parent who helps their kids do homework knows.

> Look for AMI-certified

Just be sure you know the difference between AMS and AMI. They're pretty different in their approach to Montessori. AMI is strictly traditional Montessori, whereas AMS is a more progressive model. My mother founded an AMS school, so you can guess which one I think is better. But you have to decide which style makes more sense to you.

Yes, and my mother founded an AMI school so you know why I said AMI. :) Though the gentlest person you’ll ever meet, she talks trash at the drop of an hat about AMS, charter schools and nearly every other sect. Hey, her trainer was trained by Mario Montessori. That said, she’s a little off the AMI orthodoxy, and every school does have its own style, so you gotta observe at the schools you’re interested in.
> The Montessori method of education involves children's natural interests and activities rather than formal teaching methods. A Montessori classroom places an emphasis on hands-on learning and developing real-world skills. It emphasizes independence and it views children as naturally eager for knowledge and capable of initiating learning in a sufficiently supportive and well-prepared learning environment.
I was a troubled kid. Expelled from 2 kindergartens for disruptive behaviour. My parents tried Montessori, and it worked. They found out I was interested in mythology, so I apparently learned to read from the Greek myths. One of my friends was into cars, so they got him a pile of car showroom brochures and he learned to read from that.

There was a non-verbal autistic kid there, too. I played "clap-hands" with them every day, apparently the only human interaction (apart from their parents) that they had.

We moved when I was 5, and I went to a normal school after that. I don't remember much about it (all the above is stories my parents told me later). Luckily we moved to a small village where the teacher had enough time to continue giving me the personalised attention I clearly needed. Then I got shipped off to boarding school and the rest of my schooling is a dark, terrible mess of anger and violence.

It totally worked for me. I hated school, except that one.

What kind of kindergarten expels children? It sounds at best grossly incompetent. Are you sure there was no other bias that played a role in their decision? It sounds rather unlikely you were the cause.
Private schools tend to do it if the behavior severely affect other kids. E.g. repeated violent behavior.
Public schools just let the repeated violent behaviour happen :p
When they start having to spend 80% of their attention on one kid, it's a problem that needs to be addressed.

I say this as the parent of a kid who is right on the verge of being kicked out of preschool over that issue. I totally get it. I wish I knew how to help him. He has some great qualities, but he also requires constant attention and mentally draining correction from everyone that's involved in his life.

You aren’t alone. Have a great kid but it’s non stop boundary pushing, arguments, stubbornness, and lots of frustration. Teacher makes a huge difference. Kindergarten just barely worked. First grade with a more active and creative teacher is much better, though still maddening at times.

You got this!

When a system misbehaves consistently, you stop attempting to force the system to behave and instead sit back and examine why it is misbehaving. If your wheel doesn't like to roll downhill and keeps veering off to the side, no matter how even the wheel is.. sometimes it's the hill.

One of the Montessori practices I'm a big fan of is observation. Quiet almost secret observation of the child. Ideally the child isn't aware you're there and you merely observe them act freely (in a safe environment for the child).

This was me. I wish I could apologise to my parents for for what I put them through. Though, to be fair, I did spend a few years in therapy fixing what they put me through too. Families are difficult.
I sometimes wonder about whether personalised teaching as a young student is overall good or bad, for students who then move on to a university with very large, impersonal classes (e.g. with more than 1000 students per class).

On the one hand, I think students in small classes can really become more confident and enthusiastic about learning in the long-term. But on the other, a shift to larger classes can be alienating (e.g. feedback from educators is less frequent). This could be mitigated by going to office hours, but there are plenty of minority experiences that stick where teaching assistants and professors are unwelcoming. The change could be less of a shock for students who went to large high schools, as they're more used to large classes.

Perhaps students who have the chance to grow up with individualized learning can opt for universities that have smaller classes, though it's not always possible when large public universities can often be much more affordable. I wonder if there is a way to prepare students from smaller schools with personalized education to do well at much larger educational institutions.

The graduates from my kids’s school which does a lot of personalized stuff, do disproportionately well at high school (not sure about college as there’s less data there). I think some of it is inculcating a sense of joy about learning so that even when there are obstacles (like institutional schooling), the kids will be motivated to learn anyway. (I’ve seen the Premack principle at work with my son where reading went from something that would be rewarded to something that served as a reward.)
I think it is also a greater level of self-confidence and trust through knowing what they are all about (and hence enjoy what they learn more).

So many kids (myself included) hit university not knowing what they should be doing (or what they've been learning actually requires at the 'next leve') because you're guided to broad and narrow learning curriculum and not following their specific interests intensely.

We see the chaotic, political, competitive and ranked corporate world as 'normal' instead of a terrible, poorly organised and dysfunctional system. It's not 'the real world,' it's a bubble that reinforces itself because we train kids to fit into it throughout their education.

I needed tutors for my college Computer Science and Math classes because the classroom setting wasn't enough for me. Add then add in study groups. I needed all of it, from big class to individual.
I went as a kid and remember it as one of the most fun moments of my life. I remember being able to do whatever I wanted. I was binge-reading some weeks, playing with fun toys with other kids other weeks, or just laying outside on the grass. This was preschool though.
The CEO at a previous company went to a Montessori school until middle school. He said he could barely read when he got there. He still had major problems spelling basic words in his late 60s. I guess it didn't hurt him but he was already a smart guy. It's hard to tell how much it mattered.
I have two kids in it, one 11 year old boy and one 8 year old girl. The school we were in switched to Montessori 4 years ago. The younger loves it. The older very much dislikes the open nature of the school day and struggles to complete tasks. His teacher has had to modify and provide him with much more structure than you would normally receive. You might say that’s because he didn’t start in Montessori from the beginning. But knowing my child, I think Montessori doesn’t work for some kids, in the same way rigid traditional schools don’t work for others.
I went through 4th grade. Afterward, I found school boring, and refused to do rote homework (because it was not how I learn things, and thus a boring waste to me).
I attended a private Montessori for elementary school, then was home-schooled for middle school/junior high. I then went to a public (magnet art school) for high school.

The gap did provide a bit of a buffer, but I nonetheless did not care for the transition. While the systems were quite different, I believe it was more the difference in the teacher quality that had the largest impact. I was fortunate to go to a small, exceptional Montessori school before such things became ridiculously expensive, while the public school, although it had a few very good teachers, also had some very marginal ones (basically, tenured and terrible).

If the quality of teaching is similar, then I expect the transition would have been much easier. As others have noted, shop around since the teaching quality, rather than the teaching structure, is ultimately what was the starkest change for me.

Yes

My oldest daughter attended private Montessori until age 12 when she transitioned to an exurb public Middle school in an extremely high income area.

Transition was easy because the Montessori middle school she was going to was new and hadn't gotten their legs yet, so had a pretty lackluster program. Adding to that the lack of extracurricular and club/team opportunities, and small class sizes, Montessori method starts be become a hindrance to learning the complex social dynamics you need to survive IRL.

My other kids transitioned to US public education at 8 and 10 respectively with no issues

The most difficult transition was for the 8 year old, simply because her personality fits the more loosely structured method of Montessori better, however this faded pretty quickly

Should be noted also that my kids are extremely naturally gifted and generally live in the "AP/Honors" world, so would most likely flourish anywhere. YMMV

“ Should be noted also that my kids are extremely naturally gifted and generally live in the "AP/Honors" world, so would most likely flourish anywhere. YMMV”

All children are extremely naturally gifted, it’s the world around that always manages to grind it out of most of them. I think that also represents what Montessori was aiming for when re-thinking education.

"All children are extremely naturally gifted, it’s the world around that always manages to grind it out of most of them."

What a load of horseshit. Say that in the special education class with 8th graders that can't read or use the bathroom on their own, despite the best efforts and attention of their teachers.

Responding to a post saying children are naturally smart and gifted with "Well what about the disabled children?" isn't helpful to anybody, and purposefully misses the point of what they are saying.
“What a load of horseshit. Say that in the special education class with 8th graders that can't read or use the bathroom on their own, despite the best efforts and attention of their teachers.“ - and that comment right there is exactly what I mean by the world around them always manages to grind out the gifts.. some people never get to see it.
I love the charity of this, and I think as a Heuristic this is a good way to approach pedagogy.

Worth recognizing however that natural variability means there's going to be people with harder times in certain areas.

Our job (collectively) as educators is to make it easy to integrate the wide range of human diversity into regular life, so as to make life easier for everyone in total.

Sent my kid to a Montessori in kindergarten. The thing I liked about it is that they put kids of different ages together. From what I've seen, kids learn fastest when they're put with kids slightly more proficient than themselves.
I was put into montessori preschool at around age 4 after my mom caught daycare workers abusing me. I liked it, was a fun time and I figured out how to read at around a 4th grade level at 5. The issues started when I got taken out of that environment and put into a normal one when I started grade school. You see, my preschool teacher noticed that I had ADHD, but that didn't really matter in a Montessori environment. But in traditional school, this means you get in trouble a lot, get terrible grades, and I've been almost kicked out of every school I've been to. I found the transition to traditional structured school traumatic. This was in early grade school too, I can imagine the experience of going from Montessori school to traditional school in later grades to be impossible, like trying to socialize a feral cat or something.

Look OP, if you think school is about your kids learning you've got it very wrong. Wikipedia and arvix are for learning. School is state subsidized daycare, and social conditioning. Industrial society requires discipline, structure and obedience. Those values are not driven into a child's head in the Montessori, model. Do your kids a favor and get these things drilled into their heads early, before you have a bunch of intellectual bums laying around your house. Don't send your kids to Montessori school.

Wow, this is terrible advice.

You have to put in the effort yourself to teach them those values (if you can even call them that...) and that life is not all fun and games. That said, Montessori model schools are great for your children, even if they're just "glorified daycares" instead of school. Children need to play, it's how they learn everything, including how to enjoy life. Do not immediately throw them into a life of "discipline, structure and obedience". That's not what life is about.

I’m helping to manage a Montessori preschool, so I’m immersed in Montessori at the moment.

There’s a pretty consistent underlying structure to the day, and the kids are taught to eg sit quietly for the class gathering (“circle time”), so I don’t think it’s accurate to say that the kids are taught no discipline. The periods that they’re asked to sit for aren’t very long, it’s preschool. But if you go an observe a class, they’re actually extremely well behaved. During their work cycles, they go and get their work, they sit individually to complete their work for a bit, then they return it to the shelf as they found it. And they’re learning relatively advanced reading, spelling, and math at 4.

One thing to be aware of is that many Montessori schools, especially nowadays, are “Montessori-inspired”, they don’t actually go through the effort (and the hiring requirements) it takes to be accredited by AMS. It’s more expensive to hire actual Montessori teachers, but the difference can be pretty incredible.

It sounds like your experience was traumatic and that’s really unfortunate. But, your experience is far from universal for either school type. Today, particularly with Section 504 plans, many schools are much more adept at accommodating ADHD and a number of other challenges. Kids who have slow handwriting development can use keyboards or text to speech. Kids who get extremely overwhelmed can take breaks in the hallway. Others who are bored by the offered curriculum are given access to Khan Academy. It’s not universal and it can require some parental persistence to both create the plan and enforce its use, but it has helped a lot of kids.

Public school taught me physics, calculus, history and a smattering of other topics I wouldn’t have delved into on my own (for example, reverse polish notation.) It did not teach me discipline, structure or obedience (I was actually spanked by a grade school teacher, which seems unfathomable now.) As such, I was wholly unprepared for higher education. Some of this stuff might require direct intervention from the parent instead of simply relying on a school to take care of it.

Both my kids transitioned from Montessori to public school at 11 (grade 5) in the US. 13 and 16 now.

+ Love of learning and self-driven discovery

+ Top of class in pretty much all subjects

+ Comfortable giving presentations

+ Comfortable working in groups

+ At ease working with younger students/children and essentially mentoring them

+ Excellent handwriting

+ Respect for teachers

- Difficulty with testing that involves framing the questions in an intentionally deceptive manner

- Difficult transition to the cliques and more aggressive social dynamics of public school

- Tough for them to deal with the way many students treat their teachers and behave in general in public school

I would recommend, that a year or 2 before the kids transition they start doing standardized tests and worksheets to get acclimated to that. It's a big shock otherwise.

Overall my kids loved their time in Montessori and wish the program had gone through high school.

I'll agree with you that some teachers really suck. I can think of a few examples I had growing up that fit your description.

That being said, we have a real shortage of teachers right now and low pay combined with lack of respect is a large reason for that shortage. Maybe the solution isn't calling them stupid and disrespect them. Maybe instead we should make teaching a profession with a liveable wage where they don't have to deal with parents throwing temper tantrums when their kids don't get straight A's. Maybe if we did that, we'd have enough people still wanting to be teachers that we could go ahead and fire the shitty ones (something we can't do if we don't have replacements)

We probably just need a different approach to education in general, or just a reckoning of what values our society actually has. As much as I like to hate on teachers (because of bad experiences I had) they really are just the symptoms of an institutional/cultural problem. Reasons teachers get disrespected (and arguably deserve it):

- Education is a major studied by idiots who want to party in college.

- Western society is individualistic to a fault. The reason teachers get screamed at is because grades are seen as an attack on the character of a parents child (and used to evaluate and individuals worth). Since the parents refuse to believe that their little kid might just not have a high IQ or be lazy, clearly the teacher is at fault. Everyone wants to believe their little mini-me is a special snowflake, the bell curve proves otherwise.

- This narcissism and individualism, is also a feature of teachers. Hence, the constant self-aggrandization of being a glorified daycare worker by everyone in the profession.

- Teachers unions make it difficult to fire shitty teachers, even if there isn't a shortage of teachers. Just like cops, teachers look out for themselves.

- Good teachers get poached by private schools, that offer higher wages.

Institutional/Cultural problems that make education shitty:

- Property taxes fund schools. Rich suburban areas have well funded schools, poor inner city areas have underfunded schools that are falling apart. Guess which one attracts better teachers?

- The US is a large and very diverse country. Some populations here value education A TON, others do not. This is a reality that has to be acknowledge, and the standards of say, Silicon valley should not be applied to rural Texas. (my siblings took AP US history in Texas and they didn't even learn about the civil war)

- College is pushed on ALL students, and funding is partially determined by college admittance. Needless to say this is wasteful and partially contributed to many of the issues around student debt and credential inflation.

- Standardized testing is also a terrible mechanism for determining school funding. Teachers end up wasting a ton of time trying to teach to some arbitrary standardized test, and the students hate it as well.

Idk I could probably list more issues with education but those are a few off the top of my head.

Just want to point out this sounds more like a private->public pros and cons list. I’m not doubting it at all, just not sure if it’s due to the Montessori method. Most Montessori’s are or are operate similar to the private setting.
There's definitely a strong overlap in that sense. Probably also because these institutions tend to have smaller class sizes which allow better teach/student interaction and more time. Public schooling in the US could do this too, but has been hamstrung for decades.

In math the kids definitely leveraged the binomial/trinomial tools, beads and other tactile methods to have a better understanding of the concepts of mult/div/exponentials/roots long before they would have approached in the standard US arithmetic methods. They were also doing algebra and geometry by the end of Montessori.

Montessori also spends a lot of time working on holistic views with regards to science and history and then give the kids the freedom to do their own research and projects on the topics. The normal school models tend to take more of a cause-effect + memorize the dates method as that's what tracks the testing. It's not generally till university that they then go back to something that usually requires critical thinking.

On critical thinking there's an emphasis there in Montessori on involving the kids in asking more questions and then building a model to analyze and defend their position. Public school is optimizing for learn by rote and it's a culture shock going to Uni where they back to something that's utilizing critical analysis.

My older child is in IB at the moment and they're using much of this as it's taught in more of Uni style.

By IB do you mean international baccalaureate? Do you recommend that over standard curricula?
Yes and yes. All of the teachers at the IB here hold a masters or higher in their topics and teach it like it would be at uni. Only one of high schools around here offer anything near it in course depth and focus.

I also like that philosophy is compulsory, I feel that the humanities are under served in our current school systems.

I attended a small, private, religious, non-Montessori school through middle+high school.

While the atmosphere wasn't toxic like I hear people say about public school, few of my peers were interested in learning, excelled academically, etc.

A non-negligible portion of the kids in my school were the ones kicked out of the public school for grades or troublemaking. I think they did better at my school, but that population affected the academic experience. My brother went to another nearby religious school and it was the same.

My school was caught in a loop of poor funding -> sub-par teachers -> less enrollment -> less funding.

I expect a school focused specifically on self-actualization and skill-building to have better results than an arbitrary private school.

This is a good point. "Private" encompasses a wide variety of experiences and quality. My private experience with my kid is of the somewhat elitist variety. They simply would not accept expelled students from any school. They heavily curate enrollment to create an environment for success. They're building a cooperative community of Families that will reinforce the holistic development of each student. Parental involvement is required and with fairly high expectations.

If you just throw kids together and expect the syllabus/curriculum to prevail, you'll quickly find the Lord of the Flies elements of public school social dynamics come into play and for a child often are more important than academics. At that point, simply being "private" has no advantage.

> At that point, simply being "private" has no advantage.

Based on the experience given above as well as my own experience, I'm going to guess the poster was talking about Catholic parochial schools. Catholic parochial schools were the original public schools in North America and still operate as such today, except obviously no public funding in the United States (they do in some provinces of Canada).

Either way, they'll accept basically anyone. However, they do consistently give better results anyway, even adjusting for income and social status. Actually, the effect is most pronounced in the lowest incomes. The richer you are, the less difference parochial v public makes (of course going to super cushy private schools puts you at an advantage).

> - Difficult transition to the cliques and more aggressive social dynamics of public school

Am I naive in thinking that the aggressive social dynamics of public school adds no value whatsoever to a child's or teenager's development?

Like, _why_ would anyone want to put their children through that? Is it _really_ integral to a person's social development to understand how to interact with bullies (worst case)?

I admit that I am rather nihilistic about public schooling, but I'm open to changing my mind.

I agree that a lot of it's needless and painful, but there's some merit in knowing how to defend yourself (physically, mentally and emotionally). There's a lot of the petty BS that you learn from in school that transposes to adult life. I hate watching my kids deal with it, but I'd be remiss in raising them if I didn't prepare them for that.
But why do they need this from public school over say any other social ... activity (?). For example sports.

I am genuinely questioning whether public school makes children socially mature rather than only being a traumatic experience for many pupils, for no other reason than that public schooling is the default choice.

No you're right, there is no other reason than public schooling being the default choice. Which is why its necessary. It's self fulfilling.

It's the choice that everyone goes through. So unless you want your children to be unable to adapt to the people that were shaped through that horrible system, you will need to introduce them to that system in some capacity. Sports are not really enough. School is like day job for kids until they're 18. Everyone goes through the same standardized garbage, and they will have to live their lives with other people who went through the same standardized garbage.

Your only choice is to pay exorbitantly so they don't go through that garbage, but will face adulthood with 99% of the population that did, which can have mixed results.

What school does is provide an environment of ~8hrs/day to pressure test their social skills and build coping mechanisms (good and bad). You do get that to a lesser degree from other environments such as sports and in the end it's all transferable learning. Playing on a team vs training an individual sport with a club gives very different social lessons and shapes them accordingly.

But I don't think school is what makes them mature as much as it's the adults that they look up to and emulate that shape that. And whether it traumatic can depend on how they're able to internalize it.

I was home schooled all the way through til college - never went to any regular school. I have never regretted that, and never felt that I am missing out on any skills necessary for dealing with functional adults. Indeed I see the painful impacts and lasting damage those experiences had on some of my friends, and I am glad I never had to experience it.

Kids are cruel to each other because they do not yet know any better. They are still developing empathy and have not yet learned social skills. Kids in mixed-age environments can (and do) take their cues from older children and adults; kids who are isolated into the bizarre, historically nonexistent single-age environments found in the modern school system do not have that advantage, and accordingly tend to brutalize each other. Outside of prison there is nothing like it in adult life.

Just want to point out that adults can be just as cruel or even crueler than children with just as little empathy. I don't believe or buy the idea that it just a kid thing. We live in this myth that adults are more mature but interacting with society dispels that myth drastically quick, in my experience.
I think I see a lot more kindness as an adult, but I think this is almost exclusively due to selection effects.

I do not see that kindness at the airport or the grocery store, or most other instances that are closer to a random sampling of the US adult population.

I think the idea is that everyone has to learn to be a good person. Most kids haven't yet but will eventually. some never will.
>There's a lot of the petty BS that you learn from in school that transposes to adult life.

No, you learn maladaptive patterns. Your options are artificially constrained. Most of the ways a grown adult would deal with e.g. bullies are just not available to you.

Take physical violence for example. As an adult, if you're threatened with physical violence you have the options to:

- Get out of there. But kids can't do this because they're physically confined to the same classroom with the same people, every day. And obviously you're not allowed to just leave the school when you want to.

- Fight back. Risky, but you at least won't be punished by the courts if you can argue self-defense. But kids can't do this because "zero tolerance" policies punish both the aggressor and victim, by design, if the victim fights back

- Call the police. Kids can't do this, police don't care about schoolyard disputes. Snitching to a teacher just gets you bullied even more.

- Talk the person down. Maybe this works, but in a school they'll be back again the next day, and you'll have to do it again, and again, and again. Adult interactions are not so predictably repeated, unless in some other highly institutionalized setting like the military or a prison (guess which places also have problems with violent bullying).

Adults can, well, solve their problems like adults. Schoolkids literally aren't allowed to solve their problems like adults. Fuck, they're not even allowed to go to the toilet without asking someone first.

Is there any wonder they develop behavioral pathologies to cope: passivity, social withdrawal, self-harm, proactive aggression, self-sabotage, etc etc.

And I wonder how much of adult suffering comes down from not un-learning bad behavioral patterns learned in school? How many people have put up with being treated like garbage for years (at work, in a relationship, etc), because they haven't internalized that they don't need to ask an authority figure to be allowed to leave?

I never had the opportunity to go to more "not normal" school like Montessori, and I ended learning rather quickly, that at least in normal private schools, the solution to any problem, is violence. If that is not working, then even more violence.

At some point I had to defend myself from a bully (that probably had a awful home life, since that guy managed to come home to school 7:00 in the morning already drunk, multiple times) by bashing the guy with a metal table and then threatening to kill him with a knife. Only then, he stopped bothering me.

Also I knew more than one guy that admired Columbine guys, their reason is that it was a good way (in their minds of course) of both getting out of their shitty life and taking revenge at same time.

Thankfully, now that I am adult, all problems so far I could solve by just talking to people, no tables, knives, planks or chains necessary.

Note: I went to "good" private schools, thus nobody died or got seriously injured, but I have friends that went to public schools, and one of them for example was forced to cause serious injury when 3 older students ambushed him right outside the school, and the only thing he had to defend himself was his skateboard, so he proceeded to hit them with the metal axis where you attach the wheels, broke half of the teeth of one guy, caved in one of the temples of another, and broke the shoulder and one knee of the third, after that the school started to have the police patrol near the school to prevent a repeat of this. Also that school banned skateboards, yoyos, long rulers (specially a particular metal ruler distributed as souvenir during a political campaign, that people found out you could sharpen and use as a decent machete) and spinning tops (specially those with metal tip, one kid made a hole in another kid head with one).

What the hell? When & where were you guys going to school?

I went to a rough inner-city school and there was literally nothing like this. The fights were all between people who were already involved.

I'm honestly confused by many of the comments I find in this thread re: bullying.

I went to a pretty rough school (repeated fights, people I went to school with murdering people, etc.) and I basically was never even once threatened with violence. All the bullying is through words and making fun of people, etc.

Is physical bullying of this sort actually that common or more media depiction?

Parent commenter, for me there wasn't much violent bullying in my school. I just used those examples because they're likely to resonate with more people. It isn't that uncommon. But my overall point applies to other things as well.

- work-life balance. we expect kids to do "homework", but we don't expect adults to do work outside of actual working hours. we call those places "toxic working environments" and avoid them if we have any sense. I actually have more time to myself as an adult than I did as a kid.

- doing things only so that they can be graded for the approval of some authority figure, rather than because they are intrinsically worthwhile or enjoyable

- a peer group artificially constrained to be only of kids within a year of your age. interacting with kids a few years older or younger is out of the norm, friendships between year groups are rare. that's not how adult life works. I have a pet theory that so much bad behavior in schools is caused by this age stratification.

I would generally agree with you. However, unfortunately, a lot of organizations tend to mimic these exact same social structures. It may not be as aggressive because we're adults now, but understanding how to navigate that and when something is toxic can be a helpful skill.
(comment deleted)
I spent two years in a rough-ish public school. It was the hardest period in my life but it taught me very much about valuing people from all walks of life and especially on adapting my behavior to get positive outcomes in any social setting. I can absolutely see how that experience is lacking on some of my friends that spent all their lives in protected environments.
Fair point but can't that be worked around through having parents teach their kids to value people from all walks of life? True the lack of exposure does play a factor but I would wager it falls heavily on what parents hand down to their children and how they perceive the world.
Eh, I went to an elite private university after attending a not-so-good urban public school.

Lack of exposure is a massive factor and even with good intentions it does not really make up for it.

Most of the kids I went to school with were oblivious about poverty or even just being mindful of different socieconomic circumstances. stuff like

"yeah, let's just have all of our friends go out to a fancy restaurant and split the bill for every single one of our birthdays"

I agree with your conclusion about aggressive social dynamics of public schools add nothing to child's development, and I base my opinion on my own experiences. I pretty much hated school - not for what I was meant to learn there but because of the aggression. That's main reason I put my kids through montessori, to spare them that experience I had to go through, and which contributed nothing to my development.
There's value to teaching people how to handle conflict, in a safe, low-stakes environment. There's always going to be assholes in life, you need to learn how to deal with them.

The problem is when the degree of conflict escalates past that safe, low-stakes level (which it does for some people, in some schools). We don't have everyone spend a month in prison, as part of their education, for instance, because it wouldn't be safe, or low-stakes, and would permanently damage people.

Gotta put your kids through the damage of school social dynamics so that as adults they'll be equipped to interact with other people who were also damaged by it.
This is not how it works, though. Your damage compounds with the damage of others, it doesn't negate it.

Kids who go through Montessori, Waldorf, etc, have a much better foundation for dealing with damaged people. If you start from a place of self-respect and expect the same of others, you can recognize when others aren't going to reciprocate and you can cope with that.

I mean, for what it’s worth, I’m not being serious :).
I don't know how to frame this that doesn't come off very Stockholm Syndrome, but ... the environment of human beings is not the jungle or the tundra, it is other human beings. As such, being able to navigate among the majority -- whatever they are -- has some kind of utility.

I'll throw in a side of "Americans are often 'stuck' in high school on some developmental level." I couldn't necessarily say the same about people in Europe or anywhere else.

Handling social conflict is a reality of adult life.
The reason that's valuable IMO is that once you get into the Real World, you are going to run into these complex social situations and need to be able to navigate them with grace. Especially in the business world.
I dont think anywhere i have worked was anything like my high school.

Except in the most generic sense that there are lots of people and occasionally there are petty disputes.

How will your child cope in prison if they've never experienced school?
Thanks for sharing - those are some very valuable insights. If it's not to personal to ask what sex are your children?

I suspect transitioning out may be slightly different depending on a large variety of factors but maybe how children are raised to socialize in a traditional sense. To be fair its been many years since I've been in school but there's probably still a bit of a lean for activity based socializing for boys vs girls but hopefully that's changed.

I have a lot of experience with public Montessori, wife taught as a middle school Montessori teacher for the past 3 years and both my kids went through the same school. My youngest is still there at grade 5 and my oldest is in 7th grade at a traditional middle school. My wife has taught traditional high school for about 10 years and then did a summer of training to be a certified Montessori teacher.

One thing we learned is that Montessori isn't for every child. My oldest did OK but he much prefers traditional schools and is thriving at his middle school (a public magnet). My youngest, on the other hand, loves the self-guided learning and pace. He's more organized and self-motivates better than my oldest which makes a big difference. He reads like crazy and finishes books in a week that would take me a month at least, not sure where that came from but he gets a lot of free time at school when his "works" are finished. Both kids are diagnosed with ADHD and so am I (my poor wife heh).

Another thing, the Montessori we attend is public so it still has to meet district and state testing requirements. That put it in an awkward spot where it could never be pure Montessori because of the district and state mandated testing. It also puts the teachers in an awkward spot because they're rated on testing results which contradicts the Montessori method. My wife got fed up and left last year and no teaches at a traditional public high school.

I live in DFW and the Montessori i'm referring to Mata Elementary. DISD is a notorious hellhole of a district but Mata is hanging in there. It's not perfect by any stretch but they're hanging in there and doing their best with what they have. https://www.dallasisd.org/mata

How did you determine that Montessori wasn't right for your oldest?
Did it for one year. Best year of my school life. But it's a shock to go back to the public system where dynamic are adversarial and artificially oriented around superficial metrics, both for tests and social life.

You probably need both to be well adapted because the public system teaches you to defend yourself, which us necessary IRL. Montessori teaches you collaboration and thinking outside of zero sum mindset.

not montessori, but i was in an "applied scholastics" (scientology) school for a few years. what a trip that was.
I didn't even know this existed. Going to have to look it up!!
You should write a book, it will sell
Have some experience with Montessori schools, but naturally all schools are different. Like previous posters have said, it can be very good at not beating the curiosity out of kids like some public schools can. They have a pretty good way at teaching reading too. Math is more interesting and one downside is that the skills don't always translate 1:1 if you ever transition to public schools. They will be ahead in some areas, but behind or at a loss in others. Mainly due to the order and way things are done which are very, very different.

One thing that may also be a factor is any learning differences in the child. Montessori teaching is rigid in its own way and not the best for children with dyslexia/dysgraphia (though neither are standard public school curricula). Although early Montessori math is friendlier for dyscalculia with all the use of physical objects. Depending on the school and individual guides, things like ADHD, autism may also lead to issues with the school. Thought that could be said of any private school.

The biggest thing we saw with people pulling their children out of Montessori schools were fears about academic progress and measuring their children against their neighbors' kids in public school. That's on the parent though: some needed constant feedback and validation via grades to feel like their kids were competitive with public schools.

> Montessori teaching is rigid in its own way and not the best for children with dyslexia/dysgraphia (though neither are standard public school curricula)

i didn't mention this in my comment but this point is true in my experience as well. My oldest has both dyslexia and dysgraphia and really struggled with reading the way Montessori teaches it. We had to get outside specialists and basically do a very intense summer school to get him up to speed and things figured out. Once we understood what was happening we were able to get state required accommodations at his Montessori which really helped. He's now at a public middle school magnet and doing pretty well. His reading and writing are, by far, his hardest subjects because he's basically got one hand tied behind his back because of the dyslexia/dysgraphia but the kid knows how to work and he gets through it.

edit: If i may brag, i've seen that kid of mine do things grown adults would run from. That summer school was 4 hrs a day of intense work and an absolute struggle many days ended in tears/frustration but he did it and beat dyslexia down to something he could manage. I've never seen anyone work like he did, when i'm getting lazy and phoning it in I think about him and pick up the pace.

My son went through Montessori from ages 2 until 11 (finished grade 5). As with any other institution, it depends on the quality of teachers. He had 1 great teacher, one good teach, and 1 not so good teacher during his schooling. There are a couple of key factors which made us choose Montessori:

- mixed aged group classrooms. So in one year of the 3 year cycle, he is the younger child (and receives mentorship from his older buddies), and in year 3 of each cycle, he is the older buddie mentoring younger pupils. Since he has no siblings, this is a benefit to his development.

- Montessori follow the state curriculum, however they allow children to manage their own time. So if he wants to do math all day, he can, and the teacher is there more for project management and giving him assistance than to drive him by a strict 45 minute schedule. At the end of the week, he is supposed to accomplish the assigned work (regardless of which order he wants to do it in). This will help him in the future with his own project management and prioritising work loads (we hope).

- the parents sending their kids to Montessori are not of the Elitist breed. I wont explain what I mean by that here. Its better than Steiner type schools (my personal opinion).

Other than the above, there wasn't anything particular about Montessori compared regular State run schools.

> the parents sending their kids to Montessori are not of the Elitist breed.

I think that will depend on the school. My daughter went to two, on opposite sides of the country: one was filled with super nice parents, the other had a lot more pretension.

tldr went to Montessori, thumbs up.

I went to a Montesorri school from 1st through 4th grade. I enjoyed the atmosphere. In recent years I've read about Montessori and found that my Montessori experience was different, but much the same wrt a gentle focus on practical individual learning.

Non Montessori school was a process of checking boxes and actual thinking inbetween, while Montessori was a cycle of thinking through problems for yourself, sometimes as a group.

One thing I didn't appreciate until later school years is that Montessori blends different ages and skill levels together. I neither felt the need to keep up nor to excel, just to figure stuff out. For example, I remember a a classmate writing an essay using movable letters on a mat, but he didn't space them out so it was hard to read. I asked why he was doing it like that and the teacher responded that he had chosen to do it that way, I felt it was wrong, but instead of letting me get on a high horse, the teacher drew my attention to what I was already on my way to do. He continued to write without spaces, and I continued to think someone should correct him. Lo and behold, he learned to use spaces, all without someone, teacher nor child, scolding him, with words or with red marks. That's hard to do in typical bureaucratized classroom.

If I were pressed to find fault in Montessori itself, I'd say, it cannot succeed at all without good teachers/emotion/energy conductors, while a common classroom can get ok enough outcomes with an authority figure and good textbooks.

Yes, I went to a Montessori school through 6th grade (now 25 years old). I have mixed feelings about the experience.

I agree that it did well to set my up academically. I ended up going to middle/high schools that were relatively average academically, so I was pretty strong in all subjects in comparison to my peers. Ultimately I went to a very prestigious college and now work in a wonderful finance job I love. However in the many years of therapy I’ve had as an adult, I continue to identify Montessori school as a foundational contributor to my social anxiety, and ultimately my ensuing clinical depression over a lack of social life which haunted most of my college years.

My Montessori school had about 15-25 kids / class year. Some of the larger years were split into two groups with separate teachers. Every year, maybe one or two kids left to go to other schools and one or two new kids joined, but for the most part I grew up with the same core set of children for seven years. I honestly believe this had a permanent negative effect on my ability to socialize and form new friendships that I am only barely beginning to correct over a decade later. Admittedly I did not participate in any extracurricular outside of Montessori school (particularly because it had its own after-school programs). So when I transitioned to a public school for middle/high school, it was a sharp culture shock and I definitely struggled to fit in.

I think Montessori schools are worthwhile academically, but you should be careful to keep your children in contact with other kids outside the Montessori bubble.

I had never heard of Montessori schools before this thread so I'm sure there is more going on than I'm aware of - but I wanted to point out that what you describe here:

> school had about 15-25 kids / class year. Some of the larger years were split into two groups with separate teachers. Every year, maybe one or two kids left to go to other schools and one or two new kids joined, but for the most part I grew up with the same core set of children for several years.

seems perfectly normal from a UK primary school perspective (up to age 11 or 12 depending on the area). I'm surprised to hear that kids younger than that age would be expected to have larger peer groups in the US.

Huh, is that the maximum number of students of the same age? To be clear, the Montessori school I went to had a little over 100 students with all 6 class years combined.

For context, in the US many public middle/high schools are like two orders of magnitude larger per class year. Many schools have like 1000 kids / class year.

It would be fairly typical for a UK primary school (up to age 11) to have up to 30 kids per class, but only 1 class per year - so ~210 kids total. Some schools have 2 classes per year, so double that for 400-500 in the whole school - but that many is rare in my experience.

Secondary school (11-16) is more commonly around 30 per class, 7-12 classes per year, 5 year groups in the school - so 1000-1500 kids. 16-18 can either be at the school (which would then be a smaller cohort than the 15-16 year group due to some people going elsewhere), or an external college which is highly variable in size.

In France, a typical primary school will have between 100 and 200 kids total maybe 250 in Paris but that would be a large one. A middle school will be between 400 and 800 students and a high school around 1000.

1000 kids / class year is unheard of. That seems huge to me to the point I can’t understand how it would work. I knew mostly everyone in my class year up to high school and even then I probably knew more than half. Might explain why the social scene is far less brutal here than in the US.

It is also the norm in parts of Eastern Europe - having the same 20-30 class year between the ages of 6-7 and 16-17.

Could it be that the social life at the 'prestigious college' was just rubbish, e.g. geared towards extraverted mba-types with 'default' social activities being clubbing and drinking?

I went to school in a rural area of the US and we also had about 20 kids in most classes. It started to get a little more crowded towards high school as there seemed to be a lot of people moving to the area and it didn't seem to be expected. But everyone was worried there were too many kids in class when there were 30 at that point.

So I think this varies quite a lot across the US. I tend to feel that large cities have more crowded classes than rural areas, but I have no data for that.

We have a Montessori nearby we considered, but ultimately decided it was too risky due to the small class size - if we went in blind and ended up with a bunch of kids ours didn't get along with it would be painful to roll back.

The local public school seems to be fine (this is elementary/middle grades). Thinking about going from there to a more elite private high school though, biggest downside being that it will require a bit of a commute.

I wish you could load this all up into a world simulator and see which option worked out best 10 years into the future :-)

i am very confused by the reasoning for your choice. i believe the smaller the class size, the less likely there are going to be any problems. for one, the teacher will have more time for each child and be able to notice and deal with conflicts, and also your child will spend more time with the same kids, and so they will have more opportunity to get along.

but most of all, i do not believe that children can not learn to get along over time. so any issue with kids not getting along is going to be temporary.

It was mostly a numbers thing. If probability of any given kid being a good match is p, I wanted a good chance of getting 3-4 good matches i.e. wanted (1-p)^(N-4) to be small, while not losing too much quality due to overpopulated class. I thought a cohort of 20 in the class year was too small. We've also had a cautionary experience with an earlier grade where too many classmates were aggressive little shits who were no fun to deal with (though with enough good eggs to counterbalance).
ok, i do agree that prior bad experience does shape ones expectations, and i could not say that i would not allow my self to be influenced by such an experience. that said, from an outside perspective, i don't think the odds are stacked like that. from my personal experience, a large class size doesn't make it more likely for any one child to make friends. on the contrary. in my class of 25-30 kids i had no friends at all. i believe that a smaller class of say 15 kids would have increased the opportunities to make friends because there would be less opportunities for others to exclude me from their activities.

even if your child makes friends easily, large classes allow the class to split into multiple subgroups, cliques that stick together. the smaller the class, the less likely this should happen. at least that is what my intuition suggests. i would put the limit for that to 10-15 kids though. any more than that is an invitation to form subgroups.

but we also must not forget the montessori aspect here, which has a strong influence on the group dynamics and individual childrens behavior.

for one, i believe that the montessori approach is driving and motivating children in a way that they simply don't show as much negative behavior as they would exhibit in a traditional class.

At least in my country (Romania), the norm in all public schools is to have the same set of ~30 children you'll go to school every day with from grade 0-1 (6-7 years old) to grade 8 (14 years old). Since there are very few to no electives, you'll spend ~all of your time in school with all of these kids every day for 8 years - and virtually everyone in the country has this experience (private schools are very rare).

Edit to add: the whole school would have significantly more people, typically around 5-10 30-pupil classes for each of the 8-9 years. So perhaps the difference is the total number of children in the same school - though typically interaction between different classes, even of the same year, was far less than within-class.

Same here in Sweden. All school is like this. Not just Montessorri.
It used to be the norm to mix up the groups every three years, when transitioning between low/mid/high school stadium.

I appreciated that change of social dynamics every time.

Same in China (Shanghai). Same 30 to 35 students in the same class would do 1st to 6th grade. Then you'd usually go to a different school for 7th to 9th grades, then take a test to get into a high school for 10th to 12th grades. All three would have the same class you'd stick with, usually with way more intra-class interaction than inter-class interaction.

Sports was usually one thing that was more inter-class, but that was it.

Yeah, i went to public school in canada. It was all the same kids up to grade 8. Each year had basically 2 classes of about 27 kids each.
>, but for the most part I grew up with the same core set of children for seven years

uuh this is how regular school is in Sweden...

You have a class of people in grade 1-6, then grade 7-9 is a new school, then high school is a new school.

But I guess we all have anxiety so ur right xD

> Every year, maybe one or two kids left to go to other schools and one or two new kids joined, but for the most part I grew up with the same core set of children for seven years. I honestly believe this had a permanent negative effect on my ability to socialize and form new friendships that I am only barely beginning to correct over a decade later.

While I believe your experience to be entirely legitimate, what you are describing is the norm throughout most of Europe and I can assure you that most of us are socially adjusted (or at least somewhat socially adjusted).

I have very old memories (6? or earlier) for attending for a approximately a year. It might have been Waldorf, it might have been Montessori.

There were several young people who I later transferred in HS back into their district and remembered.

Lots of little learning puzzles and nap time. LOTS Of stories. In fact I would say the curriculum, and this is a long time ago, was primarily fables besides what was self-directed and puzzles. The teachers were mostly kind.

I did Montessori between ages 6 and 15, then transitioned into more traditional education for the last three years.

The main difference was how much more challenging Montessori education was. The teachers really observed me and how I performed on assignments, and they could tell when I needed more of a challenge, and assign something to me that was just at the edge of what I was able to do. In the traditional education, if I consistently just did the bare minimum expected of everyone, I was a double-plus A plus student.

I was also allowed to explore subjects that interested me in greater depth, as long as it didn't come at the expense of subjects I found less interesting. I learned a lot of English and maths in the first few years!

If I had a disagreement with a Montessori teacher, we would sit down together and have a mature conversation about it and reach some sort of mutually beneficial solution (yes, even when I was under the age of 10!) In the more traditional education, there was the assumption that if I disagreed with the teacher, I was wrong and should shut up. (I ended up not passing a few classes in the traditional school because of disagreements with the teacher – I simply stopped attending the class at that point. Didn't seem productive to go on.)

I also had a lot more spare time in the Montessori school. As long as I did well on the work assigned to me and didn't bother my classmates, the teachers didn't really care how I spent my time. I could sit in a corner and read or do long multiplication, or go out and kick around a soccer ball. I would like to think this helped me learn independence.

On the other hand, I also have a notable lack of respect for authority figures. I like to think this is good, but it has also gotten me into trouble for disagreeing with hardline managers, refusing to do things I think are unethical, etc. I think some of this can be attributed to the Montessori school, where respect was based on fact, rational argument, and patient listening, rather than who should be commanding whom.

In terms of authority figure respect - - I always get the feeling that's something thats innate. I have the same aversion to authority and has gotten me into trouble not reading the politics of a situation / power dynamic. I probably could attribute it to be raised in a public school system though my recollection is did respect the teachers. Interesting take.
> On the other hand, I also have a notable lack of respect for authority figures.

I went through "classical" education system (with lots of aggression, as somebody else already mentioned in another thread here) - and can tell I also obtained no respect for authority figures. School taught me to survive school by tricking those teachers who had no respect to pupils. Give them what they want and you'r going to be fine - even if you don't learn anything useful. Same when it comes with relationships with other pupils, especially those aggressive ones. I observe my kids who I send to Montessori and can definitely tell they are not easy when it comes to disagreements - and I like it that way, it keeps reminding me that I have no right not to treat them with respect even when I'm tired or in hurry. I see teachers putting lots of attention to mutual respect as well.

There might be some confusion over what "classical education" means. Do you mean a traditional/mainstream public school? Or classical as in structured around the trivium?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_education_movement

I believe the confusion is merely your own. The context is clear here.
Not to me.
Are you equally confused by the lack of cello in classical rock?

Notice the use of quotes.

Is anyone here talking about this other educational system you're referencing? Have there been any mentions of it?

It wasn't clear to me, either - there's an education system conventionally called "classical education" and it is not what you refer to when you use that term.
I meant traditional public school, it's what I referred to as "classical" ("classical" in a sense what I believe most of us went through), though I understand there are private schools that in principle operate in similar way.
> Am curious what peoples experiences from Montessori transitioning to other education systems was like and how they perceived the school worked or didn't for then? Have some children decisions and looking for outside opinions! Thanks!

I went through something similar through the end of high school. I did, however, go through public school for elementary.

My experiences mirror a lot of what others on here have already written. The transition to back to traditional education (university) wasn't an issue.

If you are already motivated, going from a low to moderately more rigorous style of learning is easy.

The issue is going in the other direction, which is why so many first year university students fail.

Very small anecdotal experience, but I was in Montessori school for grades 2-3 (in the late 80s) and it ruined my math education. When I should have been learning the standard ways to do basic math, they were teaching me nonsense like "skip counting" with rhymes. Despite coming from a family of people very good at math (which also put a focus on math education at an early age), I fell behind and never caught up.
My child has been homeschooled and many of the other homeschooling families I have talked to have used Montessori. My primary impression is that it varies a _lot_ from one Montessori school to another, and there isn't much preventing someone from claiming that their private school is "Montessori". So while it's great that you are asking for feedback on HN, make sure also to find out the inside scoop about the _particular_ Montessori school you are considering.