Public Montessori programs strengthen learning outcomes at lower costs: study

Post by diordiderot » Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 6:55 AM UTC

didibus wrote: post #124

michaelt wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does placing by ability actually helps student learn and score better? Yes, you shunt all the disruptive/obstinate kids into class 2 and they can spend 4 hours of math lessons every week rehashing arguments about how they have a phone so they don't need to know what 7x12 is. This means the students in class 1 get undisrupted classes, learning more and raising their grades. Because of the way these things are done,…

> This means the students in class 1 get undisrupted classes, learning more and raising their grades. That's pure hypothetical, and some disruptive kids are also good and could make it to the top class and still be a class clown. Unless you propose more splitting kids up by "disruptiveness". I don't think any of this tells us of the quality of the method for actually teaching. It's like schools that have really hard…

Post by lazyasciiart » Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 7:16 AM UTC

unethical_ban wrote: post #146

lazyasciiart wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not what he said. He wants to get rid of kids being tracked into gifted kindergartens because a) it’s ludicrous and b) testing four year olds is just a roundabout way of finding the kids with parents who got them a tutor for kindergarten entrance exams, and the replacement metric of getting pre-k teachers to pick them is not much different. He argues that kids don’t need to be shuffled off to special schools u…

If this is true then I stand corrected. I understand the bias of "rich kids get training" so if he is not killing gifted programs but merely adjusting them, then fine.

Post by mmooss » Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 7:29 AM UTC

adolph wrote: post #59

mmooss wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is not easy to make this work on a public school-sized scale. Why not? Costs are lower, etc.

Costs aren't exactly lower. The study noted that the cost savings came from higher student to teacher ratios in 1st-3rd offsetting higher costs of teacher training and classroom materials over a hypothetical amortization period. This is rational but not indicative of flipping a switch to save x%. The upfront costs of teacher training and Montessori materials were amortized over their expected lifespan of 25 y. Total…

Post by bonoboTP » Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 8:05 AM UTC

em-bee wrote: post #79

bonoboTP wrote: post #54

Might be due to many other things than the Montessori methodology. Such as peer quality and teacher quality, potentially better and more expensive/healthy lunches or a million other things.

montessori methodology and training (at least as certified by AMI) is a strong selector for teacher quality. trainees have to spend 90 hours in class just observing children and writing reports about their observations as part of their training. they learn to understand what the kids need and how to teach them. i am not aware that traditional teacher education does any of that. likewise peer quality should not be eve…

Post by inglor_cz » Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 8:07 AM UTC

sgc wrote: post #126

inglor_cz wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Class sizes under 20 and schools under 120 at least through middle school would raise a far less pathologically self-centered society." This is a big if. Until the 1990s, class sizes routinely exceeded 30 and school sizes 500 in former Czechoslovakia, but I wouldn't call us "pathologically self-centered society". As for self-centeredness, shrinking family size might be the true reason. Only children tend to be a lot…

I think you are missing the context of what I said: I didn't say: all countries with large class sizes are self-centered. I said: in a self-centered society, smaller class sizes would be a big help to undo the harm that currently exists. Don't underestimate the influence schools and school communities have on the formation of character. It is huge.