Public Montessori programs strengthen learning outcomes at lower costs: study • Hacker News Board

Re: Public Montessori programs strengthen learning outcomes at lower costs: study

#211

Post by everforward » Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 5:18 PM UTC

sushp wrote: post #45

WillAdams wrote: post #32

My children attended Montessori schools, and it really is a wonderful system. I would really like to see an extension of this learning method up through high school --- the closest thing I'm aware of was a school I attended in Mississippi for a couple of years --- classes were divided between academic and social, social classes (homeroom, phys ed, social studies, &c.) were attended at one's age, while academic classe…

I had a good impression of "Montessori" from hearing that Larry/Sergey/Bezos went to one. When I put my kid in it at 3 years old, he hated it. As I looked into it more, it seems to me that it is actually very rigid, with kids being able to play with just a small set of toys that don't really exercise their creativity, and with little opportunity for group play. We switched him to a Reggio Emilia school where the kids…

I don't doubt your experience, but mine was the opposite. I went to a couple of different Montessori schools, from kindergarten through 6th grade. The majority of our day was what I would call "structured free play"; even in 6th grade, I think formal "sit down" lessons were only half the day. Teachers would often do impromptu sort of lessons for a single or small group of children, like if they were playing with map toys they'd come over and talk about different countries and the weather and food and whatever.

The rest of the time had loose guidelines on what to do (like you should read X pages of any book in the library) or you were free to do/play with what you wanted once that stuff was done.

We were largely encouraged to do things in a group. I think the only place to even sit alone if you wanted was the book nook, everything else was communal tables.

I really enjoyed it, and was ahead to the point of being bored when I switched to public schools. I tried for like a week in 5th grade and they were covering geographic features I'd already done back in 2nd or 3rd grade (archipelagos and islets and what not).

Re: Public Montessori programs strengthen learning outcomes at lower costs: study

#212

Post by em-bee » Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 5:18 PM UTC

phatfish wrote: post #199

sushp wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a good impression of "Montessori" from hearing that Larry/Sergey/Bezos went to one. When I put my kid in it at 3 years old, he hated it. As I looked into it more, it seems to me that it is actually very rigid, with kids being able to play with just a small set of toys that don't really exercise their creativity, and with little opportunity for group play. We switched him to a Reggio Emilia school where the kids…

I have a book "The Montessori Toddler". We read a lot with our son who is almost 3 now. In the book it is recommended not to introduce fantasy in books until 6 (when apparently children suddenly understand the difference between fantasy and reality). I assume this is an original Montessori teaching. Anyone who knows childrens books knows they are around 95% fantasy stories containing anthropomorphized animals (and so…

seems so obviously wrong to me that I would be cautious about the rest of their teachings

that doesn't seem fair. the reality is complicated. i found this paper which talks about this issue: i just briefly skimmed it, but it suggests that the older kids get the better they can make the distinction:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3689871/

generalizing that into a single statement from which age fantasy is fine is difficult if not impossible. as a parent, i wouldn't worry, but as an educator i need to be more cautious because such recommendations tend to be taken seriously, and therefore it is reasonable to err on avoiding fantasy for younger kids.

kids thinking they can fly are a risk: https://slate.com/advice/2025/08/parenting-advice-daughter-i...

and therefore such advice is more defensive than to be taken as a hard rule that must not be crossed.

Re: Public Montessori programs strengthen learning outcomes at lower costs: study

#213

Post by adolph » Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 6:01 PM UTC

mmooss wrote: post #155

adolph wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> not indicative of flipping a switch to save x% If that's our standard, then nothing is worth doing. Lower costs seem like a good possibility.

Sure, sometimes short term spending enables long term savings. And on an even longer time scale, how do improved outcomes figure in?

The significant factor is how a change like this is implemented in context. Within a public school system there may or may not be convincible political appetite to increase short term costs for longer term gains.

It seems that the district(s) studied are making those changes and studying the outcomes in order to make prudent choices long term, which is not flipping a switch but is doing more than nothing.

Re: Public Montessori programs strengthen learning outcomes at lower costs: study

#214

Post by bonoboTP » Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 6:03 PM UTC

em-bee wrote: post #210

bonoboTP wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, that's an empirical question. I rather doubt it and think that the more adept teachers are more likely to apply there and to get through it. It's a filtering mechanism.

if montessori is adopted as part of a national or state curriculum then there would not be a filter anymore. and i do not think may people would fail the training. from what i saw it is rigorous and intensive, but it is not difficult. certainly not more difficult that traditional teacher education. the only teachers that would struggle would be lazy ones that enter the training with a preconceived idea of what teachi…

Ok, and I'm saying that in that case you wouldn't see an effect, precisely because there would be no filtering.

Re: Public Montessori programs strengthen learning outcomes at lower costs: study

#215

Post by adolph » Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 6:06 PM UTC

sgarland wrote: post #184

adolph wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is actually very rigid, with kids being able to play with just a small set of toys that don't really exercise their creativity There exist various implementations of Montessori. AMI was founded by Dr. Montessori [0] and certifies schools so that parents can have some assurance of adherence to a standard. The many materials in a Montessori classroom, including things that look like a dollhouse, don't exist for un…

> In those situations the Montessori classroom's weakness is that there is only one guide for all subjects as opposed to a traditional school's subject-specific teachers. This is very much dependent on the school (and probably age of the students). At the one my kids go to, as soon as they’re in 1st grade, they have multiple teachers: science, music (which doubles as theater - the entire school does an annual play),…

For sure, my kids' school was AMI and still had a few ancillary adults. It can still be a bummer most of the day.

Re: Public Montessori programs strengthen learning outcomes at lower costs: study

#216

Post by obscurette » Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 6:09 PM UTC

em-bee wrote: post #182

spicyusername wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that anecdote leads to the same conclusion, no? Children with worse parents have worse outcomes? All the kids with engaged parents who participated in online classes from home probably did just fine. I'm not saying going to school doesn't matter, I'm saying that what kind of school you go to is going to matter a lot less if your parents can't do a good job. Or put another way, what kind of parents you have is…

that anecdote leads to the same conclusion not quite. your claim was that with a bad situation at home, school does not make a difference. while i understand the opposite. the worse the situation at home, the more of a difference school makes for them. i see it like this: good home + good school = good outcome good home + no school = good outcome bad home + good school = ok outcome bad home + no school = bad outcome…

It's much more complicated than that. For example in my experience a school per se doesn't matter much for many kids from problematic homes. What matters is that they get a time away from home. COVID lockdowns killed exactly that – they didn't have to be away from home and it was very bad for their mental health.

Then there is a growing number of parents who are actively working against the school, undermine the child's trust against school and teachers etc. Most of the time a school can't do anything with these and outcome is always bad.

Then there is a growing number of children who don't do well in school no matter what. They can have a good home and good school, but because of some neurodiversity for example do very bad anyway.

I also don't agree that good home alone is enough for good outcome. It really depends from many things.

In short – education, outcome from school and home etc are hyperindividual and there is no hard rules.

Re: Public Montessori programs strengthen learning outcomes at lower costs: study

#217

Post by sersi » Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 6:23 PM UTC

phatfish wrote: post #199

sushp wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a good impression of "Montessori" from hearing that Larry/Sergey/Bezos went to one. When I put my kid in it at 3 years old, he hated it. As I looked into it more, it seems to me that it is actually very rigid, with kids being able to play with just a small set of toys that don't really exercise their creativity, and with little opportunity for group play. We switched him to a Reggio Emilia school where the kids…

I have a book "The Montessori Toddler". We read a lot with our son who is almost 3 now. In the book it is recommended not to introduce fantasy in books until 6 (when apparently children suddenly understand the difference between fantasy and reality). I assume this is an original Montessori teaching. Anyone who knows childrens books knows they are around 95% fantasy stories containing anthropomorphized animals (and so…

That's actually my biggest pet peeve with Montessori and I say that as a father whose son goes to a Montessori school.

Is it true that younger children have a harder time making the distinction than older children? Yes that's true. There's research that shows it. But does that necessarily mean that removing exposure to fantasy in stories is beneficial? And would a child exposed to fantasy not learn to distinguish between make belief and reality earlier? There's actually some research that shows that [1]

So while there's a lot I love about my son's school, the stance on fantasy is something I vehemently disagree with. What's interesting though is that most parents in my son's class will happily read fantasy books with anthropomorphised animals, talk about Santa Claus, etc... and completely disregard the idea that fantasy shouldn't be introduced. Officially, we can't give books with fantasy stories to the school library but last time I went to read to children there, 20-30% of the stories had clear fantasy elements.

If you're interested about the rest of Montessori ideas, it's interesting to read "Montessori: The Science Behind the Genius" by Angeline Lillard. She tries to go through most of the Montessori teachings and justify it with existing studies etc... For most part, she finds studies that are relevant and solid but not for the part of fiction where you can really feel that she struggles to justify her own bias.

[1]

- https://www.alisongopnik.com/Papers_Alison/Walker%20Gopnik%2... for a survey of research on that. It shows that fantasy is both beneficial and that children can start distinguishing between fantasy and reality.

- https://liberalarts.mercer.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/20... Do monsters dream? Young children’s understanding of the fantasy/reality distinction

Re: Public Montessori programs strengthen learning outcomes at lower costs: study

#218

Post by sersi » Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 6:36 PM UTC

lazyasciiart wrote: post #142

unethical_ban wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My biggest skepticism about Mamdani in NYC is that he wants to get rid of gifted programs. Apparently some thing it's wrong to adjust each child's learning experience to their capacity for learning. Which is... Wild. If an 8 year old can do algebra, let them cook.

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…

That makes complete sense. We live in HK and here most kindergarten will have an interview before starting school either at 3 or 4 years old. We applied to a play-based school and to a Montessori school and our son was admitted to both but that's because those two schools target more play focused parents.

So the interviews for those schools are less strict and competitive than some of the better ranked schools where children are competing against children who have tutored and been coached to ace the kindergarten interviews (!?).

I strongly agree with you that there's absolutely no point in testing for giftedness before 2nd grade. Even testing in 2nd grade is fully ripe for creating an arms race between parents by inciting them to hire tutors.

Re: Public Montessori programs strengthen learning outcomes at lower costs: study

#219

Post by nicolas_t » Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 6:49 PM UTC

BeetleB wrote: post #112

zorked wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my hometown there is something like that. There are two schools, one of them had a year with particularly good approval rates. Competitive parents started preferring that school, finding ways to send their kids there. That school has been sustaining better approval rates since then. Which should make no sense because the teachers themselves work odd years in one school, even years in the other school.

> Which should make no sense because the teachers themselves work odd years in one school, even years in the other school. Peers make a huge difference. Before university, I split my high school between two schools - one that was near the top academically, and one that was quite poor. The latter did have some smart students intellectually, but almost none did well academically because it wasn't valued by their peers.…

In middle school, I had good grades but was considered a bit of a teacher's pet and was not well liked (especially since I sucked at sports). So I stopped doing homework, I showed that I didn't make effort to try and be better accepted. I still did any graded homework (less than 20% of the homework given) but didn't bother with anything else. Luckily school was easy for me so I still got good grades but I got very habits from that that I have needed to unlearn after.

I strongly believe that peers are important and choosing school based on the type of peers is a valid choice. As another (more positive) example, we live in HK in a multilingual family (I speak French, my wife speaks Cantonese), my son goes to an international school in English and Mandarin. Most of his classmates speak at least 2 languages, many speak 3. In that environment, it's easy for my son to see value in speaking multiple languages and he's never rejected one language. I have a friend whose daughter is in France in a monolingual school where her peers don't value speaking multiple languages. As a result she's ashamed and refuses to speak Cantonese.

Re: Public Montessori programs strengthen learning outcomes at lower costs: study

#220

Post by dzhiurgis » Sat, Oct 25, 2025, 6:53 PM UTC

sersi wrote: post #169

dzhiurgis wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went to one near me just to check it out. They started to moan about public education system and seemed want to be alternative for the sake of it. Some parents I know there are definitely on a woo-woo spectrum. School system in NZ is already a lot like montessori with heaps of fluidity. p.s. I’ve been joking that soon you won’t be able to take your kid anywhere without a montessori/waldorf/reggio franchise.

The thing is Montessori doesn't mean anything. Any school can call themselves Montessori. So it all depends on actual accreditation. Some accreditations are also not worth the paper they're printed on (like NAMC). AMI and AMS are considered to be the two most serious accreditation My son's school is AMI accredited and at least there's not much woo-woo here. Children have to be up to date with vaccination (or they're…

NZ primary schools have no homework and are play based too, hence why it made little sense to me.