Examining a Public Montessori School’s Response to the Pressures of High-Stakes Accountability
Keywords:Montessori Method, Assessment, High-Stakes Accountability, Case Study
In order to succeed in the current school assessment and accountability era, a public Montessori school is expected to achieve high student scores on standardized assessments. A problem for a public Montessori elementary school is how to make sense of the school’s high-stakes assessment scores in terms of its unique educational approach. This case study examined a public Montessori elementary school’s efforts as the school implemented the Montessori Method within the accountability era. The research revealed the ways the principal, teachers, and parents on the school council modified Montessori practices, curriculum, and assessment procedures based on test scores. A quality Montessori education is designed to offer children opportunities to develop both cognitive skills and affective components such as student motivation and socio-emotional skills that will serve them beyond their public school experiences. Sadly, the high-stakes testing environment influences so much of public education today. When quality education was measured through only one narrow measure of success the result in this school was clearly a restriction of priorities to areas that were easily assessed.
Berliner, D. C. & Nichols, S. L. (2007, March 12). High-Stakes testing is putting the nation at
risk. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/03/12/27berliner.h26.html.
Blank, J. (2009). Situated in school scripts: Contextual early childhood teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 251-258.
Bloom, B., Hastings, J. T., & Madaus, G. F. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Brookhart, S.M. (2009). The many meanings of “multiple measures.” Educational Leadership, 67(3) 6-12.
Creswell, J.W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.
Dohrmann, K. R., Nishida, T. K., Gartner, A., Lipsky, D. K., Grimm, K. (2007). High school outcomes for students in a public Montessori program. Journal of Research in Childhood Education,22(2), 205-217.
Edwards, C. P. (2002). Three approaches from Europe: Waldorf, Montessori, and Reggio Emilia. Early Childhood Research & Practice,4(1). ERIC Document: ED464766.
Gareis, C. & Grant, L. (2015). Teacher-Made assessments: How to connect curriculum, instruction and student learning (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Guskey, T. R. (1997). Implementing Mastery Learning. Wadsworth Publishing.
Guskey, T. R. (2005). Mapping the road to proficiency. Educational Leadership,63(3), 32-38.
Guskey, T.R. (2014). On your mark: Challenging the conventions of grading and reporting. Solution Tree.
Hamel, J., Dufour, S. & Fortin, D. (1993). Case study methods. California: Sage
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Oxon: Routledge.
Hurley, A. (2004). “A perfect host for accountability" Philosophical Studies in Education (35).
Klinger, D.A., McDivitt, P.J., Howard, B.B., Munoz, M.A., Roger, W. T. & Wylie, E.C. (2015).
Classroom assessment standards for preK-12 teachers: Joint committee on standards for educational evaluation. Kindle Edition.
Kifer, E. (1997). “Why I like test scores and what they tell me about curriculum” Journal of Curriculum Studies,20(6), 627-635.
Kifer, E. (2000). Large-Scale assessment dimensions, dilemmas, and policy.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lillard, A. S. (2012). Preschool children's development in classic Montessori, supplemented Montessori, and conventional programs. Journal of School Psychology,50(3), 379–401.
Lillard, A. S. (2013). Playful learning and Montessori education. American Journal of Play,5(2), 157-186.
Lillard, A. S., & Else-Quest, N. (2006). Evaluating Montessori education. Science-New York Then Washington,311(5795), 1893-1894.
Lillard, P. P. (1996). Montessori today: A comprehensive approach to education from birth to adulthood. Schocken.
Madaus, G., & Russell, M. (2010). Paradoxes of high-stakes testing. Journal of Education,190(1/2), 21-30.
Miles, M. & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. California: Sage Publications.
Miles, M., Huberman, M. & Saldana, J. (2014). A methods source book. California: Sage Publications.
Miller, M.D., Linn, R.L. & Gronlund, N. E. (2013). Measurement and assessment in teaching (11th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.
Montessori, M. (1966). The secret of childhood. Canada: Fides Publishers, Inc.
Montessori, M. (1964). The Montessori Method. United States of America: Schocken Books Inc.
Montessori World School. Elementary I curriculum guide. Retrieved on October 4, 2015 from
Murray, A. (2015, February, 24). Expanding access to Montessori education: An opportunity for disadvantaged students [Web log post]. Retrieved from
Murray, A. (2011). “Montessori elementary philosophy.” Montessori Life: A Publication of The American Montessori Society,23(1), 22-33.
Murray, A., & Peyton, V. (2008). “Public Montessori elementary schools: A delicate balance” Montessori Life: A Publication of The American Montessori Society,20(4), 26-30.
Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D.C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-Stakes testing corrupts America's schools. Harvard Education Press.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. California: Sage Publications.
Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). California: Sage Publications.
Popham, W. J. (2014). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (7th ed.). USA: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
Rathunde, K. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2005). Middle school students’ motivation and quality of experience: A comparison of Montessori and traditional school environments. American Journal of Education,111(3), 341-371.
Torrence, M., & Chattin-McNichols, J. (2012). Montessori education today. In J. Roopnarine &
J. Johnson (Eds.), Approaches to Early Childhood Education (6th ed., pp. 355-377). Peachpit Press.
Ungerer, R. A. (2011). Finding our voice in education policy discussions. Montessori Life: A Publication of The American Montessori Society, 23(4), 3.
Waugh, C. K. & Gronlund, N. E. (2013). Assessment of student achievement (10th ed.). Pearson.
How to Cite
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
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