Montessori Education: To what extent is structure a good thing for children?

As a parent, Montessori Education was probably one of the first and earliest international ECE model that I was exposed to. The first time I went inside a Montessori school was 20 years ago when I was living in California. I remembered feeling rather unhappy that the school decided to place my 2.5 year child in a toddler class when she already knew her A-B-C's and her numbers. This just goes to show how shallow my understanding was on child development at that time. Fortunately for me (and luckily for my child/ren), my views of a child and childhood in general have changed drastically since then.

If there was one thing I remembered of my child's Montessori preschool in the US, I remembered it being very inviting to both my child and myself. The class decor and the layout of the spaces convinced me that the school would offer a great learning environment for my child. I needed no other persuasion. My child subsequently attended a different Montessori later on. The second Montessori was operating out of a home. There was only one mixed age class for no more than 15 children with two teachers. Again, despite the preschool being a home, I was very happy placing my child there.  The teachers appeared very informed and qualified about what they were doing. Coming from an Asian educational background, I didn't find the structure of a Montessori school stifling. Neither did the academic approach to learning numbers and language make me reconsider against putting my child there. All in all, my child was there for slightly under 2 years. She took on to preschool like a fish to water and was well adjusted.

It was only after I had my second child and third child and becoming a student of Educational Psychology, I realised that there are more options to early childhood education beyond Montessori. My second child never attended a Montessori school before. He has always been a very divergent thinker and learner. He was never good at conforming to rigid rules of doing things. He would never take art lessons because he said that art should never be taught. He refused to take Art as an exam subject because he felt strongly that art should never be tested. Even as a toddler, he would never line his stickers in a row, preferring randomness in presentation. He hated decoding phonics but was amazing at sight reading. But he did learn to read and draw.

I often wondered what it would have been for him if I had placed him in a Montessori school. I imagined that he would be very frustrated if he were asked to repeatedly stack a pink tower in just one way. But I guess I would never know for sure. A parent can only base his judgement on what he/she knows and perceives of her child.

Sketched by my son who refused all art lessons

Waldorf Education

For me the greatest appeal to this approach is the holistic development of a person. The concept of Head - Heart- Hand speaks volumes about how we should learn. And this is certainly not limited to children's learning. As adults, I think the principles should ring true too.

For every part of the body described as a noun, there is a corresponding verb (action) and adjective (descriptive). Simply wonderful!

HEAD - thinking (verb), intellectual (adjective)
HEART - feeling (verb), artistic, (adjective)
HAND - doing (verb), practical (adjective)

Can you see where all the Head, Heart and Hand can work in tandem?

Next appeal for me is that the approach celebrates the right of children to childhood.

Now, more than ever before, would the Waldorf approach be the answer to addressing the needs of our 21st century learners.  In Waldorf's early learning, child development is nurtured through facilitation of creative, self-directed play, as it is believed that the initiative, imagination and flexibility awakened underpin later academic learning and are the basis for innovative thought in adult life.

Compare the hallmarks of a Steiner education to the following. It is not that hard to spot where the head, heart and hand overlap with knowledge, skills and value.

I can only teach them to think

It dawned upon me that I have been doing things the wrong way.

My role is never about teaching contents because Google can do a much better job at that. I am there to create learning experiences for my students. This is a lot harder than just delivering lectures. To create learning experiences requires me to

• know my students
• identify what is relevant and needful
• go beyond notes & powerpoint
• be globally aware of what's around me
• collaborate & communicate with fellow educators, community partners
• many more

It is not going to be easy but I am willing to give it a go because I believe in what Benjamin Franklin said (below). Experiential learning for my university students should not be that different from the young children I used to  teach. From now on, I endeavour to involve and engage my students (whether young, not-so-young, or old)