Making Sense of Montessori Teacher Identity, Montessori Pedagogy, and Educational Policies in Public Schools
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17161/jomr.v9i1.18861Keywords:
Montessori, education policy, public schools, Montessori fidelityAbstract
Montessori teachers in public schools navigate a system daily that often does not align with their pedagogy, and district policies push them to stray from high-fidelity implementation. Using Weick’s sensemaking theory and literature on Montessori teacher identity, I contend that Montessori teachers’ identity plays a crucial role in how, or if, they respond to educational policies that may not seemingly align with the Montessori Method. The overarching purpose of this study was to understand Montessori public school teachers’ experiences with policies that influence their pedagogy. Through qualitative interviews and a culminating group-level assessment session, three themes emerged as teachers shared their experiences with educational policies: (a) Montessori pedagogy is more than the materials, (b) districts often force district-wide requirements that are at odds with the Montessori pedagogy, and (c) Montessori teachers in public schools do not feel supported. This article concludes with a discussion of how to better support Montessori teachers in public school settings based on the study’s findings.
References
Abrams, L. M., Pedulla, J. J., & Madaus, G. F. (2003). Views from the classroom: Teachers’ opinions of statewide testing programs. Theory into Practice, 42(1), 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4201_4
Akkerman, S. F., & Meijer, P. C. (2011). A dialogic approach to conceptualizing teacher identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 308–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.013
Anagnostopoulos, D. (2003). The new accountability, student failure, and teachers’ work in urban high schools. Educational Policy, 17(3), 291–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904803017003001
Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: High-stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2010.521261
Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., Braun, A., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Policy actors: Doing policy work in schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 625–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2011.601565
Beauchamp, C., & Thomas, L. (2009). Understanding teacher identity: An overview of issues in the literature and implications for teacher education. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(2), 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640902902252
Begin, J. (2014). Montessori early childhood education in the public sector: Opportunities and challenges. NAMTA Journal, 39(2), 61–90.
Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. C., & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.07.001
Berliner, D. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: The case of curriculum narrowing and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(3), 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2011.607151
Bevan, M. T. (2014). A method of phenomenological interviewing. Qualitative Health Research, 24(1), 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732313519710
Block, C. R. (2015). Examining a public Montessori school’s response to the pressures of high- stakes accountability. Journal of Montessori Research, 1(1), 42–54. https://doi.org/10.17161/jomr.v1i1.4913
Borgman, C. (2021). Enacting accountability in innovative schools: The sensemaking strategies of public Montessori principals [Doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia]. Archive, University of Virginia. https://libraetd.lib.virginia.edu/public_view/w95051224
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Christensen, O. (2016). Proving Montessori: Identity and dilemmas in a Montessori teacher’s lived experience. Journal of Montessori Research, 2(2), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.17161/jomr.v2i2.5067
Christensen, O. T. (2019). Montessori identity in dialogue: A selected review of literature on teacher identity. Journal of Montessori Research, 5(2), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.17161/jomr.v5i2.8183
Coburn, C. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070407700302
Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904805276143
Cossentino, J. (2009). Culture, craft & coherence: The unexpected vitality of Montessori teacher training. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 520–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109344593
Culclasure, B., Fleming, D. J., & Riga, G. (2018). An evaluation of Montessori education in South Carolina’s public schools. The Riley Institute at Furman University. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED622145
Debs, M., de Brouwer, J., Murray, A. K., Lawrence, L., Tyne, M., & von der Wehl, C. (2022). Global diffusion of Montessori schools: A report from the 2022 Global Montessori census. Journal of Montessori Research, 8(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.17161/jomr.v8i2.18675
Dohrmann, K. R., Nishida, T. K., Gartner, A., Lipsky, D. K., & Grimm, K. J. (2007). High school outcomes for students in a public Montessori program. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 22(2), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568540709594622
Ellison, S., Anderson, A. B., Aronson, B., & Clausen, C. (2018). From objects to subjects: Repositioning teachers as policy actors doing policy work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 74, 157–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.05.001
Hohmann, U. (2016). Making policy in the classroom. Research in Comparative and International Education, 11(4), 380–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499916679561
Holmes, A. G. D. (2020). Researcher positionality: A consideration of its influence and place in qualitative research. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 8(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v8i4.3232
Jackson, J. R. (2022). Maintaining the Montessori method in Louisiana public schools: A qualitative descriptive study [Doctoral dissertation, Grand Canyon University]. Grand Canyon University ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2686240438?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true
Levatino, A., Parcerisa, L., & Verger, A. (2023). Understanding the stakes: The influence of accountability policy options on teachers’ responses. Educational Policy. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048221142048
Lillard, A. S. (2012). Preschool children’s development in classic Montessori, supplemented Montessori, and conventional programs. Journal of School Psychology, 50(3), 379–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.01.001
Lillard, A., & Else-Quest, N. (2006). Evaluating Montessori education. Science, 313(5795), 1893–1894. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1132362
Lillard, A. S., & Heise, M. J. (2016). An intervention study: Removing supplemented materials from Montessori classrooms associated with better child outcomes. Journal of Montessori Research, 2(1), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.17161/jomr.v2i1.5678
Lillard, A. S., Heise, M. J., Richey, E. M., Tong, X., Hart, A., & Bray, P. M. (2017). Montessori preschool elevates and equalizes child outcomes: A longitudinal study. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01783
Lillard, P. P. (1972). Montessori: A modern approach. Schocken Books.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1986(30), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1427
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. Russell Sage Foundation.
Malm, B. (2004). Constructing professional identities: Montessori teachers’ voices and visions. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 48(4), 397–412.
März, V., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Sense-making and structure in teachers’ reception of educational reform. A case study on statistics in the mathematics curriculum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.004
Maynard-Moody, S., & Musheno, M. (2003). Cops, teachers, counselors: Narratives of street-level judgment. University of Michigan Press.
Montessori, M. (1964). The Montessori Method. Schocken Books.
Montessori, M. (1989). Education for a new world. The Clio Montessori Series.
Montessori, M. (1995). The absorbent mind (Rev. ed.). Henry Holt.
Montessori, M. (2012). The absorbent mind (Vol. 1). Montessori-Pierson Publishing Company.
Montessori Public Policy Initiative. (2015). Montessori essentials. https://montessoriadvocacy.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/MontessoriEssentials.pdf
Murray, A., & Peyton, V. (2008). Public Montessori elementary schools. Montessori Life, 20(4), 26–30.
Murray, A. K., & Daoust, C. (2023). Fidelity issues in Montessori research. In A. Murray, E. M. T. Ahlquist, M. McKenna, & M. Debs (Eds.), The Bloomsbury handbook of Montessori education (pp. 199–208). Bloomsbury Publishing.
Perryman, J., Ball, S. J., Braun, A., & Maguire, M. (2017). Translating policy: Governmentality and the reflective teacher. Journal of Education Policy, 32(6), 745–756. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2017.1309072
Read, B. L. (2018). Serial interviews: When and why to talk to someone more than once. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918783452
Rom, N., & Eyal, O. (2019). Sensemaking, sense-breaking, sense-giving, and sense-taking: How educators construct meaning in complex policy environments. Teaching and Teacher Education, 78, 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.11.008
Sachs, J. (2005). Teacher education and the development of professional identity: Learning to be a teacher. In P. Denicolo & M. Kompf (Eds.), Connecting policy and practice: Challenges for teaching and learning in schools and universities (pp. 5–21). Routledge.
Scott, C. M. (2017). Un-“chartered” waters: Balancing Montessori curriculum and accountability measures in a charter school. Journal of School Choice, 11(1),168–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2016.1251280
Valli, L., & Buese, D. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 519–558. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207306859
Vaughn, L. M., Jacquez, F., Zhao, J., & Lang, M. (2011). Partnering with students to explore the health needs of an ethnically diverse, low-resource school: An innovative large group assessment approach. Family & Community Health, 34(1), 72–84. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44953574
Vaughn, L. M., & Lohmueller, M. (2014). Calling all stakeholders: Group-level assessment (GLA)—A qualitative and participatory method for large groups. Evaluation Review, 38(4), 336–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X14544903
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Sage.
Whitescarver, K., & Cossentino, J. (2008). Montessori and the mainstream: A century of reform on the margins. Teachers College Record, 110(12), 2571–2600. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810811001202
Williamson, P., Bondy, E., Langley, L., & Mayne, D. (2005). Meeting the challenge of high-stakes testing while remaining child-centered: The representations of two urban teachers. Childhood Education, 81(4), 190–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2005.10522271
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Heather E. Gerker
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. Authors can view article download statistics for published articles within their accounts.
Journal of Montessori Research
Author Agreement
The following is an agreement between the Author (the “Corresponding Author”) acting on behalf of all authors of the work (“Authors”) and the Journal of Montessori Research (the “Journal”) regarding your article (the “Work”) that is being submitted for consideration.
Whereas the parties desire to promote effective scholarly communication that promotes local control of intellectual assets, the parties for valuable consideration agree as follows.
A. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR’S GRANT OF RIGHTS
After being accepted for publication, the Corresponding Author grants to the Journal, during the full term of copyright and any extensions or renewals of that term, the following:
1. An irrevocable non-exclusive right to reproduce, republish, transmit, sell, distribute, and otherwise use the Work in electronic and print editions of the Journal and in derivative works throughout the world, in all languages, and in all media now known or later developed.
2. An irrevocable non-exclusive right to create and store electronic archival copies of theWork, including the right to deposit the Work in open access digital repositories.
3. An irrevocable non-exclusive right to license others to reproduce, republish, transmit,and distribute the Work under the condition that the Authors are attributed. (Currently this is carried out by publishing the content under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 license (CC BY-NC.)
4. Copyright in the Work remains with the Authors.
B. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR’S DUTIES
1. When distributing or re-publishing the Work, the Corresponding Author agrees to credit the Journal as the place of first publication.
2. The Corresponding Author agrees to inform the Journal of any changes in contact information.
C. CORRESPONDING AUTHOR’S WARRANTY
The Corresponding Author represents and warrants that the Work is the Authors’ original work and that it does not violate or infringe the law or the rights of any third party and, specifically, that the Work contains no matter that is defamatory or that infringes literary or proprietary rights, intellectual property rights, or any rights of privacy. The Corresponding Author also warrants that he or she has the full power to make this agreement, and if the Work was prepared jointly, the Corresponding Author agrees to inform the Authors of the terms of this Agreement and to obtain their written permission to sign on their behalf. The Corresponding Author agrees to hold the Journal harmless from any breach of the aforestated representations.
D. JOURNAL’S DUTIES
In consideration of the Author’s grant of rights, the Journal agrees to publish the Work, attributing the Work to the Authors.
E. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This agreement reflects the entire understanding of the parties. This agreement may be amended only in writing by an addendum signed by the parties. Amendments are incorporated by reference to this agreement.
ACCEPTED AND AGREED BY THE CORRESPONDING AUTHOR ON BEHALF OF ALL AUTHORS CONTRIBUTING TO THIS WORK
