Live data from Hacker News

The Montessori Mafia

blogs.wsj.com

11–20 of 160 posts

Re: The Montessori Mafia

#11
I went to a Waldorf/Steiner school, which shares some of these traits such as the lack of a focus on assessment and grading and the emphasis on creativity.

We weren't taught the alphabet until the age of about 6-7 and basic arithmetic at 7-8. We did begin learning foreign languages at age 6, however. In practice my older brother taught me to read and count well before the Steiner curriculum did, but I still think that the education was very valuable.

I think that creativity in adults is often stifled because they don't want to "get it wrong". People are afraid of trying their hand at a new skill or taking a risk on a new idea because they are "realistic" about their chances of success. Children just do it anyway. I think that Steiner schools encourage this attitude, and no doubt Montessori schools do the same.

There's a reason the really big hitters are often first-time entrepreneurs - they are naive enough to try. Creativity works the same way.

Re: The Montessori Mafia

#12
post #5

"When Barbara Walters, who interviewed Google founders Messrs. Page and Brin in 2004, asked if having parents who were college professors was a major factor behind their success, they instead credited their early Montessori education" Ahem. I spy a latent variable in this correlation. Can you find it? Hint: Montessori education may or may not have advantages. But unless you control for educational background and inco…

Definitely. You cannot assume causality simply because a few results turned out a certain way. Although I have to admit I want to since I would have enjoyed building stuff much more than listening to a prof lecture for an hour.

To your point though, you could also cite a number of people not educated in Montessori schools who were very creative and achieved big things.

Re: The Montessori Mafia

#13
I can't speak for the higher end of Montessori as I only attended when I was just starting out my career in education, but I found it to be rewarding for someone with a wandering mind, more so than the strict rote-based Catholic-influenced education I was subjected to further on. I also experienced British private school, and that was definitely better than public but without the scientific approach that I saw at Montessori.

It depends on the kid, I guess. I have an independent, creative side to me that also needs strong discipline to get anything done, so I'm grateful to have experienced both worlds. As far as current prices go, my divorced and randomly employed mother was sending both my sister and I there until we opted for the local public school as it fit better with our social lives, and I know there were some kids there in the same boat as us, but overall it was a good mix back then with the benefit of being in the hippy Cambridge of the '70s.

My advice would be to buy the best education for your kids that your money can buy, and unless your local school system is the pits, I wouldn't home-school them. There's a lot to be said for socializing at an early age and teaching the kids subjects in addition to the regular curriculum isn't against the law either. If the kids are smart, they'll put the regular coursework behind them and need the extra teaching anyways.

If the child is a dullard, don't waste too much money on them as you'll need it for later on for when they really fuck up.

Re: The Montessori Mafia

#14
My daughter between the ages of 2 and 8. My wife really wanted it, but I was skeptical. She seems to be doing pretty well and - it could be a personal bias - she also appears to be performing better in school than friends her own age who attend public schools.

Re: The Montessori Mafia

#15
post #8

Fascinating insight. But isn't this a classic case of of correlation, not causation?

Why is the press so ignorant of basic statistics? It is really depressing. I wonder if reporters actually don't understand the difference between correlation and causation, or if they just willfully ignore it because it makes for catchier headlines and easier research.

Re: The Montessori Mafia

#16
post #3

I've been thinking about how I'd educate my own kids, and currently it's a tossup between the Harkness approach a la Phillips Exeter, the entirely home-schooled approach, and something like this which seems like a hybrid. If anyone has experience with any of the above, I'd love to hear about it.

Here's what my wife and I are planning to do with our daughter: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1656756

Edit: here's a useful overview of alternative teaching methods - http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/25926

Re: The Montessori Mafia

#17
Only if your education differed from the so-called basket of techniques lumped together as "the Montessori method".

It's been my experience that a home environment with parents who read and care about expanding horizons will tend to offer the children guided "self-directed" learning, observation and indirect teaching, and productive routines of "focused" activities versus idle play, and these children will tend to outperform peers without that same desire to constantly learn instilled in them -- regardless of the formal education they acquire.

Re: The Montessori Mafia

#18
Why does this result surprise anyone? Traditional US schools exist not to cultivate individuality, and make people more expressive and creative, but rather for different reasons.

Grade school is designed to teach people enough to read The Bible, and enough writing and arithmetic to not get cheated by the fancy, downtown shop keepers.

High school is designed to teach the bulk of the citizenry to work according to a fixed schedule, probably in a factory, along with a faceless mass of similary trained people.

It sounds inflammatory, but it's true.

Re: The Montessori Mafia

#20
post #4

I really like the idea of Montessori, and if I have the cash I'd like to send my future kids there someday. That being said, I see correlation here, not causation. To be a little bit tongue and cheek, I could write the headline: "99% of successful people do not attend Montessori schools"

The real meat is the 1996 study they mention:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5795/1893.full?ijkey=3...

Although they reference the study in a really odd way: "Neuroscience author Jonah Lehrer cites a 2006 study published in Science that ..."

What does Jonah Lehrer have to do with the study? AFAICT absolutely nothing. He appears to be a contributor to the WSJ, but he didn't write the study. And none of the links they present are even to the article where he apparently cites this study. I have no idea why he's mentioned here.

Tangent aside, I think that's the real meat.

Post reply on HN