Racial and Economic Diversity in U.S. Public Montessori Schools
Keywords:diverse schools, public Montessori, low-income students, students of color, magnet, charter
As public Montessori schools rapidly expand through the United States, the question then arises: What population of students do the schools serve? This study presents a new empirical data set examining the racial and economic diversity of 300 whole-school, public Montessori programs open in 2012–2013, where the entire school uses the Montessori Method. While school-choice scholars are concerned that choice programs like Montessori lead to greater student segregation by race and social class, this study finds a variety of outcomes for public Montessori. Public Montessori as a sector has strengths in student racial and socioeconomic diversity, but it also has diversity challenges, particularly among Montessori charters. The study concludes with recommended strategies for public Montessori schools to enroll a racially and economically diverse student body.
American Montessori Society. (2016). Introduction to Montessori schools. Retrieved from http://amshq.org/Montessori-Education/Introduction-to-Montessori/Montessori-Schools
Ansari, A., & Winsler, A. (2014). Montessori public school pre-K programs and the school readiness of low-income Black and Latino children. Journal of Education Psychology, 106(4), 1066–1079.
Banks, K., & Maixner, R. A. (in press). Social justice education in an urban charter Montessori school. Journal of Montessori Research.
Benson, J., & Borman, G. (2010). Family, neighborhood, and school settings across seasons: When do socioeconomic context and racial composition matter for the reading achievement growth of young children. Teachers College Record, 112(5), 1338–1390.
Berends, M., & Penaloza, R. V. (2010). Increasing racial isolation and test score gaps in mathematics: A 30-year perspective. Teachers College Record, 112(4), 978–1007.
Bologna, J., Kantor, N., Liu, Y., & Taylor, S. (2015). The right to stay put: City Garden Montessori School and neighborhood change. A Report for the Affordable Housing Task Force. Developing Sustainable Urban Communities, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Sam Fox School of Design and Visual Arts, Washington University in St. Louis. Retrieved from https://csd.wustl.edu/Publications/Documents/city-garden_final-report.pdf
Bohrnstedt, G., Kitmitto, S., Ogut, B., Sherman, D., & Chan, D. (2015). School composition and the Black–White achievement gap (NCES 2015-018). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress. Retrieved from the National Center for Education Statistics.
Bowie, L. (2016, February 22). City school board to decide if charter should welcome students who live nearby. Baltimore Sun. Retrieved from http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-montessori-vote-20160222-story.html
Braddock, J. H., II, & Gonzalez, A. D. C. (2010). Social isolation and social cohesion: The effects of K–12 neighborhood and school segregation on intergroup orientations. Teachers College Record, 112(6), 1631–1653.
Brown, E., & Makris, M. V. (2016, April). Too many white ping pong balls: The difficulty of diversity maintenance in prestige charter schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington DC.
Brown, J. M. (2012, February 22). Santa Cruz parents protest charter petition: Montessori school would start with 65 students in 2013. Mercury News. Retrieved from
Brown, K. (2016, April). Racial diversity in Montessori charter schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, Washington DC. Available from http://www.aera.net/Publications/Online-Paper-Repository/AERA-Online-Paper-Repository/Owner/952029
Brown, K. E., & Steele, A. S. L. (2015). Racial discipline disproportionality in Montessori and traditional public schools: A comparative study using the relative rate index. Journal of Montessori Research, 1(1), 14–27.
Clotfelter, C. T. (2004). After Brown: The rise and retreat of school desegregation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Cobb, C. D., & Glass, G. V. (2009). School choice in a post-desegregation world. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(2), 262–278. doi: 10.1080/01619560902810187
Cotto, R., Jr., & Feder, K. (2014). Choice watch: Diversity and access in Connecticut’s school choice programs. Connecticut Voices for Children. Retrieved from
Daoust, C., & Suzuki, S. (2013, July). Montessori magnets and charters: Similarities and differences in implementation. Paper presented at the AMI International Congress, Portland, OR.
Daoust, C., & Suzuki, S. (2014, March). Public Montessori elementary: Three models of implementation. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Montessori Society, Dallas, TX. Retrieved from
Debs, M. (2016a, April). Conflicted fit: Black and Latino parents’ experience in public Montessori schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington DC. Available from
Debs, M. (2016b). American Public Montessori Historical data set [Data file]. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/mF7RHs
Debs, M. (2016c). 2012–2013 whole-school Montessori data set [Data file]. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/uTQLdX
Debs, M., & Brown, K. (2016). Students of color and public Montessori Schools: A review of the literature. Manuscript submitted for publication.
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.
EGUSD staff wants diversity in local charter schools. (2016, March 8). Elk Grove Citizen. Retrieved from http://www.egcitizen.com/articles/2016/03/08/news/doc56df70b6df8db588124584.txt
Ferguson, A. (2000). Bad boys: Public schools in the making of Black masculinity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Frankenberg, E., & Siegel-Hawley, G. (2008). The forgotten choice? Rethinking magnet schools in a changing landscape. Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/5p42n2np
Frankenberg, E., Siegel-Hawley, G., & Wang, J. (2010). Choice without equity: Charter school segregation and the need for civil rights standards. Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4r07q8kg
Furman University, Riley Institute. (2015a). South Carolina public Montessori study: 2013–2014 implementation survey (selected summary). Retrieved from
https://riley.furman.edu/sites/default/files/docs/MontImplSurveySummary13-14 %2812 17 14%29.pdf
Furman University, Riley Institute. (2015b). South Carolina public Montessori study: 2013–2014 teacher survey (selected summary). Retrieved from
Furman University, Riley Institute. (2015c). South Carolina public Montessori study: Montessori student demographics. Retrieved from
Goldsmith, P. R. (2010). Learning apart, living apart: How the racial and ethnic segregation of schools and colleges perpetuates residential segregation. Teachers College Record, 112(6), 1602–1630.
Goyette, K., Farrie, D., & Freely, J. (2012). This school’s gone downhill: Racial change and perceived school quality among whites. Social Problems, 59(2), 155–176. doi: 10.1525/sp.2012.59.2.155
Goyette, K., Iceland, J., & Weininger, E. (2014). Moving for the kids: Examining the influence of children on White residential segregation. City & Community, 13(2), 158–178. doi: 10.1111/cico.12058
Helms, A. D. (2015, December 17). CMS Montessori magnets are popular, but some question access. Charlotte Observer. Retrieved from http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/education/your-schools-blog/article50123080.html
Hochschild, J. L., & Scovronick, N. B. (2003). The American dream and the public schools. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Huck, C. (2015). City Garden Montessori School in St. Louis: A story of education reform, gentrification and housing advocacy. Poverty & Race, 24(6), 9–11.
Jabbar, H. (2016). Selling schools: Marketing and recruitment strategies in New Orleans. Peabody Journal of Education, 91(1), 4–23.
Johnson, O., Jr. (2014). Still separate, still unequal: The relation of segregation in neighborhoods and schools to education inequality. The Journal of Negro Education, 83(3), 199–215. doi: 10.7709/jnegroeducation.83.3.0199
Kahlenberg, R. (2001). All together now: Creating middle-class schools through public school choice. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Kahlenberg, R., & Potter, H. (2014). A smarter charter: Finding what works for charter schools and public education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Kahn, D. (Ed.) (1990). Implementing Montessori in the public sector. Cleveland Heights, OH: North American Montessori Teachers Association.
Kostin, A. (1995). The Montessori System re-examined: Public Montessori teaching in 1995 (Unpublished master’s thesis). Antioch University Seattle, Seattle, WA.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.
Laub, P., & Kim Thomas, H.-S. (2011). Urban Montessori Charter School charter petition. Oakland Unified School District. Retrieved from
Lewis, A. E. (2003). Race in the schoolyard: Negotiating the color line in classrooms and communities. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Lewis, A. E., & Diamond, J. B. (2015). Despite the best intentions: How racial inequality thrives in good schools. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lewis-McCoy, R. L. (2014). Inequality in the promised land. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Lillard, A., & Else-Quest, N. (2006). The early years: Evaluating Montessori education. Science, 313(5795), 1893–1894. doi: 10.1126/science.1132362
Lillard, A. S. (2012). Preschool children’s development in classic Montessori, supplemented Montessori, and conventional programs. Journal of School Psychology, 50(3), 379–401. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2012.01.001
McCord, S. (2012, September 9). Santa Cruz City Schools takes public Montessori plan off the table. Santa Cruz Sentinel. Retrieved from http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/general-news/20120919/santa-cruz-city-schools-takes-public-montessori-plan-off-the-table
McKenzie, G. K. (1994). Instructional leadership practices of Montessori public school principals: The Montessori teachers’ perspective (Doctoral dissertation). (Order No. 9506796). Retrieved from ProQuest (304138887).
Meyer, J. W. (1975). Diffusion of an American Montessori education. University of Chicago Geography Research Papers. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Montessori Public School Consortium. (1993). 100 Largest U.S. school systems. MPSC Update, 2(1), 5. Retrieved from ERIC: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED382337.pdf
Murray, A., & Peyton, V. (2008). Public Montessori elementary schools: A delicate balance. Montessori Life, 20(4), 26–30.
National Center for Montessori in the Public Sector. (2014a). Growth of public Montessori in the United States: 1975–2014. Retrieved from http://www.public-montessori.org/growth-public-montessori-united-states-1975-2014
National Center for Montessori in the Public Sector. (2014b). 2014 census data snapshot. Retrieved from http://www.public-montessori.org/public-montessori-census-snapshot-2014
National Center for Montessori in the Public Sector. (2016). NCMPS rubric of essential elements of Montessori practice in the public sector. Retrieved from http://www.public-montessori.org/resources/ncmps-rubric-essential-elements-montessori-practice-public-sector
Nicholson, E. (2016, June 27). With Mata Montessori, did DISD sell its soul for the middle class? Dallas Observer. Retrieved from http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/with-mata-montessori-did-disd-sell-its-soul-for-the-middle-class-8427203
Newton, X. A. (2010). End-of-high-school mathematics attainment: How did students get there? Teachers College Record, 112(4), 1064–1095.
Nyland, L. (2015). Amendment to the new student assignment plan regarding Leschi Elementary blended model for the 2015–16 school year. School Board Briefing/Proposed Action Report. Seattle, WA: Seattle Public Schools.
Orfield, G., & Frankenberg, E. (2013). Educational delusions?: Why choice can deepen inequality and how to make schools fair. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Orfield, G., Kucsera, J., & Siegel-Hawley, G. (2012). E pluribus… separation: Deepening double segregation for more students. The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Retrieved from https://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity/mlk-national/e-pluribus...separation-deepening-double-segregation-for-more-students/orfield_epluribus_revised_omplete_2012.pdf
Pattillo, M. (2015). Everyday politics of school choice in the Black community. Du Bois Review, 12(1), 41–72. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X15000016
Pattillo, M., Delale-O’Connor, L., & Butts, F. (2014). High-stakes choosing. In A. Lareau & K. Goyette (Eds.), Choosing homes, choosing schools (pp. 237–267). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Pérez, M. (2011). Two tales of one city: A political economy of the New York City public high school admissions process (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest (Publication No. 3444338).
Potter, H., Quick, K., & Davies, E. (2016). A new wave of school integration: Districts and charters pursuing socioeconomic diversity. The Century Foundation. Retrieved from http://apps.tcf.org/a-new-wave-of-school-integration
Prothero, A. (2016, March 9). In charters, using weighted lotteries for diversity hits barriers. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/03/09/in-charters-using-weighted-lotteries-for-diversity.html
Reardon, S. F. (2013). The widening income achievement gap. Educational Leadership, 70(8), 10–16.
Reardon, S. F. (2016). School district socioeconomic status, race, and academic achievement. Stanford Center for Educational Policy Analysis. Retrieved from
Renzulli, L. A., & Evans, L. (2005). School choice, charter schools, and white flight. Social Problems, 52(3), 398–418. doi:10.1525/sp.2005.52.3.398
Rhodes, A., & DeLuca, S. (2014). Residential mobility and school choice among poor families. In A. Lareau & K. Goyette (Eds.), Choosing homes, choosing schools (pp. 137–166). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Roberts, J. C., & Fleming, D. J. (2016, January). Mapping the landscape of public Montessori in South Carolina. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Schapiro, D. (2005). Montessori Community Directory. American Montessori Society Records (Box 2016-0095_1). University of Connecticut Archives and Special Collections, Storrs, CT.
Schapiro, D. (2012). Santa Cruz residents organize to stop public Montessori charter. Public School Montessorian, 24(3), 8.
Smrekar, C., & Goldring, E. (1999). School choice in urban America: Magnet schools and the pursuit of equity. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Stansbury, J. (2014). Dealing with diversity: Administrator, teacher and parent perceptions of the responsiveness of Montessori schools to racial and ethnic diversity (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from
Stocking, B. (2015). How a diverse yet divided school blended “segregated” classes. Seattle Times. Retrieved from http://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/how-a-diverse-yet-divided-school-blended-segregated-classes/
Swedien, J. (2014, December 3). Montessori charter school supporters fight back. Leader-Telegram. Retrieved from http://www.leadertelegram.com/News/Front-Page/2013/06/04/Montessori-Charter-School-supporters-fight-back.html
Tegeler, P., Hilton, M., & McArdle, N. (2014, March 13). Community eligibility provision and the future of FRL data. The National Coalition on School Diversity. [Letter to Catherine Lhamon, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education]. Retrieved from http://www.school-diversity.org/pdf/CEP_Letter_for_ED_3-13-14.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). Public School Universe Survey, Common Core of Data [Data set]. Available from https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/elsi/tableGenerator.aspx
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Public School Universe Survey, Common Core of Data [Data set]. Available from https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/elsi/tableGenerator.aspx
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Public School Universe Survey, Common Core of Data [Data set]. Available from https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/elsi/tableGenerator.aspx
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2015a). Table 204.10: Number and percentage of public school students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, by state. Digest of Education Statistics. Retrieved from National Center for Education Statistics https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_204.10.asp
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2015b). Table 216.50: Number and percentage distribution of public elementary and secondary school students, by percentage of minority enrollment in the school and student’s racial/ethnic group: Selected years, fall 1995 through fall 2013. Digest of Education Statistics. Retrieved from National Center for Education Statistics
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2015c). Table 216.30: Number and percentage distribution of public elementary and secondary students and schools, by traditional or charter school status and selected characteristics: Selected years, 1999–2000 through 2013–14. Digest of Education Statistics. Retrieved from National Center for Education Statistics
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016a). Racial/ethnic enrollment in public schools (The Condition of Education 2016). Retrieved from National Center for Education Statistics
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement. (2016b). Investing in innovation (i3) grants. Retrieved from Office of Innovation and Improvement
Van Acker, T. A. (2013). From boutique to big box: A case study concerning teacher change transitioning to a public Montessori elementary school (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest (Publication No. 3609604).
Wells, A. S., Fox, L., & Cordova-Cobo, D. (2016). How racially diverse schools and classrooms can benefit all students. New York, NY: The Century Foundation.
Wells, A. S., Holme, J. J., Revilla, A. T., & Atanda, A. K. (2009). Both sides now: The story of school desegregation’s graduates. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Welner, K. G. (2013). The dirty dozen: How charter schools influence student enrollment. Teachers College Record. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/welner-charter-enrollment-teachers-college-record.pdf
Whitworth, M. (2016, January 17). Longview ISD will use savings to build Montessori school. Longview News-Journal. Retrieved from https://www.news-journal.com/news/2016/jan/17/longview-isd-will-use-savings-to-build-montessori-/
Wong, Q. (2014, June 19). State approval of Montessori school in Salem stalls. Statesman Journal. Retrieved from http://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/education/2014/06/19/state-approval-montessori-school-salem-stalls/11004775/
Yezbick, M. (2007). How Montessori educators in the U.S. address culturally responsive teaching (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from https://amshq.org/Publications-and-Research/Research-Library/~/media/60D2372C27E34D7D920BA5DCA228B3F4.ashx
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