Montessori Education and a Neighborhood School
A Case Study of Two Early Childhood Education Classrooms
Keywords:curriculum, diversity, partnerships, early childhood education
Project SYNC (Systems, Yoked through Nuanced Collaboration) details perspectives of a community of stakeholders committed to the enhancement of early childhood (i.e., prekindergarten through grade 3) education. Although there is a growing number of public-school programs informed by the Montessori philosophy, Montessori educational experiences often take place within affluent communities. SYNC aimed to enhance the prekindergarten through grade 3 educational experiences for traditionally underserved students by transforming two traditional early childhood classrooms to Montessori settings within a diverse, Title I school. Montessori pedagogy, curricula, and materials aligned with the school’s dedicated commitment to social justice. The study, one in a series, explored the impact of Montessori education on a neighborhood school community as evidenced through stakeholder opinions, project implementation, and teacher attitudes. Project data illustrate that a Montessori educational experience created learning opportunities that supported children from culturally and ethnically diverse communities in a traditional, Title I elementary school.
American Montessori Society. (n.d.). About Montessori education. https://amshq.org/About-Montessori
Ansari, A., & Winsler, A. (2014). Montessori public school pre-K programs and the school readiness of low-income Black and Latino children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 1066–1079. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/edu-a0036799.pdf
Banks, K., & Maixner, R. A. (2016). Social justice education in an urban charter Montessori school. Journal of Montessori Research, 2(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.17161/jomr.v2i2.5066
Bouck, E. C. (2011). Exploring the enactment of functional curriculum in self-contained cross-categorical programs: A case study. In M. Lichtman (Ed.), Understanding and evaluating qualitative educational research (pp. 110–126). SAGE Publications.
Brown, K., & Lewis, C. W. (2017). A comparison of reading and math achievement for African American third grade students in Montessori and other magnet schools. Journal of Negro Education, 86(4), 439–448. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7709/jnegroeducation.86.4.0439
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. https://doi.org/10.17161/jomr.v1i1.4941
Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability: Urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42(6), 512–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085907304964
Culclasure, B., Fleming, D. J., Riga, G., & Sprogis, A. (2018). An evaluation of Montessori education in South Carolina’s public schools. The Riley Institute at Furman University. Unpublished manuscript. https://riley.furman.edu/sites/default/files/docs/MontessoriOverallResultsFINAL.pdf
Debs, M., & Brown, K. E. (2017). Students of color in public Montessori schools: A review of the literature. Journal of Montessori Research, 3(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.17161/jomr.v3i1.5859
Debs, M. C. (2016). Racial and economic diversity in U.S. public Montessori schools. Journal of Montessori Research, 2(2), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.17161/jomr.v2i2.5848
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches (Fifth edition). SAGE Publications.
Lillard, A. S. (2005). Montessori: The science behind the genius. Oxford University 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.01.001
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, 1783. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01783
Manner, J. C. (2007). Montessori vs. traditional education in the public sector: Seeking appropriate comparisons of academic achievement (EJ1099115). Forum on Public Policy Online, 2, 1–20. ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1099115.pdf
Marshall, C. (2017). Montessori education: A review of the evidence base. Science of Learning, 2(11), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-017-0012-7
Mathews, J. (2007, January 2). Montessori, now 100, goes mainstream. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2007/01/02/montessori-now-100-goes-mainstream-span-classbankheadonce-considered-radical-and-elitist-method-creeping-into-public-schoolsspan
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book. SAGE Publications.
Moody, M. J., & Riga, G. (2011). Montessori: Education for life. In L. Howell, C. W. Lewis, & N. Carter (Eds.), Yes we can! Improving urban schools through innovative education reform (pp. 127–143). Information Age Publishing.
Musu-Gillette, L., de Brey, C., McFarland, J., Hussar, W., Sonnenberg, W., & Wilkinson-Flicker, S. (2017). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups 2017 (NCES 2017-051). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017051.pdf
Neuman, W. L. (2003). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
Orfield, G., Kucsera, J., & Siegel-Hawley, G. (2012). E pluribus . . . separation: Deepening double segregation for more students. UCLA Civil Rights Project. 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
Rodriguez, L., Irby, B. J., Brown, G., Lara-Alecio, R., & Galoway, M. M. (2005). An analysis of second grade reading achievement related to pre-kindergarten Montessori and transitional bilingual education. National Association of Bilingual Education. In V. Gonzalez & T. Tinajero (Eds.), NABE review of research and practice (Vol. 3, pp. 45–65). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schonleber, N. S. (2011). Hawaiian culture-based education and the Montessori approach: Overlapping teaching practices, values, and worldview. Journal of American Indian Education, 50(3), 5–25. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43608610
Solórzano, R. W. (2008). High stakes testing: Issues, implications, and remedies for English language learners. Review of Educational Research, 78(2), 260–329. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308317845
Tozier, J. (1911). An educational wonder-worker: The methods of Maria Montessori. McClure’s Magazine, 37(1), 3–19.
Vaughan, D. (1992). Theory elaboration: The heuristics of case analysis. In C. Ragin & H. Becker (Eds.), What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry (pp. 173–202). Cambridge University Press.
Wohlstetter, P. (2016, April 8–12).“Intentionally diverse” charter: Inside schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
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