Montessori Upper Elementary

I got to sub in a Montessori school today - only a half day, but I had wanted to sub in that school for a while.  When I lived in Alaska, I subbed several times in a Montessori school and was impressed with it.  And I have wondered since then how general the Montessori model was for upper elementary age children.  It was interesting to me that several of the things were the same and others different.

Physical characteristics of the room
True to the Montessori model of schooling, there were a lot of wooden materials in both classrooms.   But, also in both classrooms, the wooden materials don't seem to be being used much.  For instance, today I saw a couple of interesting models of the sun and the planets, including the Earth and its moons, but they were high up on a shelf and not in use, while the students worked on a worksheet packet about phases of the moon.  There were a lot of reference books available, but the students seemed to use the information in the packets the most.  The room in Alaska had wooden tables of various sizes throughout; this room had standard desks for each student, with small tables at various places around the room.  The room in Alaska seemed spacious; this one seemed very crowded.  But, in this case, some of the crowding was due to a plethora of large tanks for turtles, lizards, fish, and other creatures.  Personally, I would like to have seen some more large tables for their work.

Assignments
In both classes, the students had a work schedule that they filled out.  Long term projects were listed in one section, daily work in sections devoted to each day.  In both classes, the assignments seemed to be specific to grade levels and not to current achievement levels.  The 4th graders had one social studies assignment; the 5th graders had a different assignment.  There were two different math books, one for 4th grade, one for 5th grade.  In a way, I am a little disappointed that there didn't seem to be much individualization of achievement levels.  It may be that the classes are differentiated, since there are multiple 4/5 grades in this school.  I really couldn't tell that.

Textbooks/Worksheets
This classroom seemed to use worksheets more than the school in Alaska.  In Alaska, they had a lot of laminated assignment materials that the students rotated in using.  Since the assignments usually came in 2 or 3 week chunks, there was plenty of time for the students to rotate through the assignment materials.  Neither school used textbooks for much of their work, except for math.  

Other interesting things
The class had an aide; the one in Alaska did, too.  What a difference this makes!  Supervision is easier, grading is easier, talking to individual students and small groups is easier.  It was a moderately large class, 25 students, but you can get to know the kids better, even in just a half day, with another adult in the room.  Your focus doesn't need to be quite as widely scattered.

The academic level of the students in this class seemed average.  So perhaps the same work for all of them in each grade was appropriate.  It was hard for me to tell.

Final thing
Both Montessori schools address teachers, administrators, and staff by their first names.  It must be a characteristic of the Montessori philosophy.  I am not sure I am comfortable with that.  I think I would prefer some mild honorific, such as Teacher Laura or Ms. Laura.  I guess I am not as egalitarian as the Montessori philosophy would have me be.  Still, I had a interesting morning.  I would go back.

Big Class - Fewer Hands On Activities

I was subbing in a fourth grade class the other day.  The teacher's homeroom class was 30 students, but all of the fourth grade teachers teach math at the same time and they switch around, based on ability, I assume.  The math class I had was 34 students.  The assignment was to cut out math "code" cards.  There were pieces for hundreds (100 through 900), tens, ones, tenths, hundredths, and thousandths.  I am not sure if there were also pieces for thousands.  But, even so, not only is that a lot of cutting, it is a huge task to keep track of all those pieces.  I eventually found enough baggies for each student to put his/her pieces in, but the cutting and bagging took WAY more time than was allotted for the lesson.  We didn't even begin using the pieces, because most of the students were still cutting - and losing pieces on the floor.  A few students forgot or didn't have the appropriate workbooks, quite a few students didn't have scissors. 

The lesson is actually an interesting one.  The cards overlap, so that to form the number 264.25, you would use the 200 piece, the 60 piece, the 4 piece, the 0.2 piece, and the 0.05 piece.  Then, to change to expanded form, you just expand the cards and you see right away:  200 + 60 + 4 + 0.2 + 0.05.  But doing this with 34 students is a challenge.

One of the other (regular) teachers asked me how the lesson went and I was explaining to her that I had a hard time getting through even the cutting out part, because of all of the logistical difficulties.  She teaches one of the lower ability classes and has a slightly smaller group, but she says that she doesn't do those activities, because they are way too much hassle for their worth. 

I have subbed in a LOT of elementary classes and I am finding this to be almost universally true.  The beautiful, well-thought out manipulatives collect dust (or languish in unopened shrink wrap) and the hands-on lessons are simply skipped. It is a shame.  Kids often really like the manipulatives and, even though they are a lot of work, I think some kids really need them.  But using or making manipulatives with 34 nine and ten year olds is daunting. 

I wonder if there are Montessori materials that do the same lesson.  It would be nice to have more solid pieces than the flimsy paper ones.  But, of course, that would be horrendously expensive for such a class, even if two kids shared. 

New (Old) Direction for Education

My grandmother was a teacher; my mother, who is now 98 years old was a teacher; I am a teacher.  In all these years of teaching, what have we seen?  Wave after wave of "educational reform".  The old was thrown out and the new brought in.  But is it better ... or just different?

The best wave I have seen was the federal push to develop outstanding curricula - BSCS Blue, Green, Yellow; Man a Course of Study; The Voyage of the Mimi, etc. I was in one of the classes that got to take BSCS Blue, when it was pretty new.  I also was a student when the New Math was the rage.  There is some marvelous curriculum out there.  As a sub, I have seen bits and pieces of some wonderful lessons - simulations of Columbus' voyages to the Americas, re-enactments of the American Revolutionary debates, with both sides represented.  But, far too often, these marvelous lessons are relegated to the back burners, because of the amount of curriculum that the teachers MUST cover.  What counts is the students' scores on the standardized tests.  Where are the wonderful lesson plans for diverse abilities?

Some people have mentioned that they have just about given up on schools, because it is so hard to agree on what SHOULD be done and not just what should NOT be done.  Fewer standardized tests, yes.  But, what instead? 

I have been thinking about what I saw working at a Montessori school. I sub mainly for 3rd grades through 6th grades and the Montessori school set up was such that the kids worked in 3 week time blocks with assignments in each subject area (some of which incorporated multiple areas). The students planned their days and worked on lessons with teacher-prepared materials. Occasionally, there was some whole group discussion, but most of the time, the kids worked individually, in pairs, or occasionally in groups of 3 or 4 on their own goals. The one exception was math, which was taught in groups of 7 or 8 students, with outliers taught individually by tutors. The teacher met with individual students, taught mini-lessons to small groups of students, or led discussions.

The biggest criticism I had of the arrangement (and I subbed there quite a bit) was that some of the materials could have been differentiated much more. The middle level of materials was great, but the materials for higher and lower ability students weren't as good. With the possibilities of computers allowing for wider ranges of materials to be available, I can actually see this model working. There were two rooms with a wide doorway between them, so kids could actually go back and forth between the rooms, especially for math. It was peaceful and work oriented. The kids really seemed to take responsibility for themselves and the one boy who didn't was guided into trying to make better choices.

There are quite a few lessons where working with someone makes the lesson much better.  Students in this Montessori classroom were frequently given introductory lessons about some topic, then given assignments that explored the topic in greater depth, with the unit culminating in presentations of products or large group discussions/debates.  Student groupings were varied and flexible.  

Interestingly, for me at least, was that there weren't any "specials" teachers.  There was an adult (teacher?) supervising the gym at set times, but students showed up in the gym any time during the time blocks, when they needed a break.  Each student was required to do some physical exercise several times a week, but it could take a wide variety of forms.  Art projects were supervised by the classroom teachers as part of the regular work.  I am not sure about music.

This arrangement might actually be an ideal one for me.  I like the ability to work with the kids all day, without the interruptions of switching classes.  I like knowing what individual students are doing in all of the areas of study.  I like the ability to integrate all of the arts into the curriculum.  I like many of the Montessori materials.  And I like the effects of the structure on the students.  They seemed responsible for their own behavior and learning.  They were considerate, even to subs.

But that is the only Montessori school I have worked in, so I don't know if it was unique, or if many of them are like that.  It would be interesting to find out - one of the advantages of substitute teaching.  If a job like that comes up, I will take it.

Teachers Can't Do It All

I recently reacted to this poster on Facebook, in the group International Gifted Education.  I wrote:  "This is a great sentiment, but where are real teachers supposed to find the time to do this?"  The only person who commented on that original question was Roya Klingner, who jokingly said that good teachers will find the time by working 20 hours a day.  I appreciate the humor in this reply, but I stand by my response:  "Seriously, though, I think we gifted advocates need to stop proposing solutions that put an even greater burden on regular classroom teachers. Most of them are overstressed already."

I  have just about had it with people piling ever more responsibilities and requirements on classroom teachers.  From new standards, new tests, and new technologies to increasing class sizes, dealing with kids with special needs, and increased extra-curricular duties (bus duty, recess duty, detention supervision, after school tutoring), teachers' plates are already full.  When in the world do they have time to individualize curriculum?  People, teachers are human.  They need to eat sometimes, go to the bathroom, sit down for a few minutes.  They have families, they need to get their own exercise, they may even do things for themselves like play an instrument, garden, solve calculus equations for fun (OK, maybe that is a stretch).  

I am passionate about gifted kids, but I am also a substitute teacher.  I go to many different classrooms in many different schools and school districts.  Some schools structure their classes differently so as to ease the teachers' jobs, but all of the teachers I have subbed for have had full and extremely busy days.   

Yes, teachers should learn to differentiate curriculum, to give kids choices in methods of demonstrating what they have learned, to pose projects that can be tackled in different ways.  Good teachers do this and poorer teachers try.  But accommodating individual learners is HARD and takes TIME, especially if the learners are gifted.  Teachers can help the kids who are struggling.  Breaking down the skills and concepts they are teaching into smaller chunks is something teachers usually are good at.  They even, usually, have a large number of other teachers and aides who help them with this.  But helping gifted learners requires a lot more of a teacher.  It requires going beyond what they are familiar with, sometimes learning new material themselves, finding other people who can help, judging what is available, so that, if something must be purchased, the money (usually in extremely short supply, occasionally the teacher's own) can be spent well.  

We might as well admit this:  teachers can't do this.  They can't individualize curriculum for kids who may be placed in their classes, but who are 3 or 4 grade levels above their nominal grades.  Yes, as I have written before, there are phenomenal teachers who can manage this - I am in awe of them - but we have to stop expecting the average teacher to be able to accomplish this.  Teachers have been exploited far too long.  "If you really cared about the kids you teach, you would..."  Fill in the blank (see a list of teacher duties that keeps getting ever longer).  

What can we who care deeply about gifted children do?  Personally, as I told Roya, I advocate structural changes - grouping gifted kids in dedicated classrooms, schools, courses. Yes, the projects even there need to be flexible, but that is different from developing curriculum for each learner.  Cluster grouping is also a possibility, if the schools are too small for dedicated classes or classrooms. 

Dedicated classrooms and special schools work mostly just like a regular school. There will always be a range of abilities in the classroom. Teachers can handle a range of abilities, up to a point - 1 or 2 grade levels above or below the nominal grade level. After that, it is much more difficult, unless the class size is VERY small.

Some schools follow continuous progress models.  Children are grouped for instruction, based on their current level of achievement in that instructional area.  One school I worked at had a math block and a reading block.  All of the math classes met at the same time and kids were placed where they were ready to learn.  Similarly with reading.  Another school did that for grammar and writing.  The drawback of these models is that the teacher loses track of the individual child.  In those schools, I sometimes felt that I missed my "own" kids. 

One other model that I have seen that seems to have potential was a Montessori school.  From an early age, the students were trained to work relatively independently on a set of tasks.  The level and complexity of these tasks varied, depending on the child.  I have subbed in Montessori classrooms that follow this model, but they were not dedicated gifted schools.  Though this model seems to have potential and the teachers in these classes were good, I still did not see curriculum or expectations that were beyond two years above the nominal grade level of the class.  This model has potential for use in a gifted school, in my opinion, but even in this setting, the teachers cannot be expected to accommodate a range of more than 4 or 5 grade levels.

There seems to be great future potential in various models of computerized instruction.  From flipped classrooms to online learning, to adaptive programming, to digital production, there are now more options in this direction than ever before.  There are still problems with these models, though.  Doing chemistry on the computer is NOT the same as doing chemistry in the lab.  Skyping with a group of students from around the world is not the same as trying to convince the people in your class that your idea is valid.  Even if computerized instruction were perfect and readily available everywhere, you still need relevant experiences, discussion and interaction.

So I am pleading with gifted advocates everywhere:  work for structural solutions, but don't put down regular classroom teachers if they can't individualize the curriculum for gifted students.  They DO care about kids, but they just can't do it all. 

Montessori Schools with the Upper Grades

I have never taught for more than a week in a Montessori school - that is my disclaimer. I have subbed in a Montessori charter school for a total of about 3 weeks. Since I am mainly interested in the older elementary students, my experience with Montessori has only been with the students who would have been classified as being in 5th and 6th grades and in 7th and 8th grades.

I went into the Montessori school for the first time with curiosity, but wariness. I had looked into enrolling my own children in a different Montessori school many years before this experience and had decided against it. That Montessori school would NOT allow children to do imaginative play and my daughters were especially enamored of imaginative play at the time. I am not sure how many times my older daughter pretended to lose her shoe, as Cinderella did, and gleefully shouted, "Oh, I almost forgot!" as she pretended to hear the clock chime midnight. [Or the permutation of that event, where instead of losing her shoe, she lost her towel after her bath...her ball gown gone.] I just couldn't imagine barring her from imaginative play. So we pursued other alternatives. But my impression of Montessori schools from that school search and from my readings when I was pursuing my education degrees led me to believe that the Montessori method could be rather restrictive - proscribing some types of creativity and prescribing fixed interactions with materials.

But still, I was curious, so I accepted a subbing job at the school. I was impressed with several things, even as the school began. There were two classrooms next to each other with full time teachers and nearly full teacher aides. The classrooms were arranged with a meeting area, usually a couch and several comfortable chairs, a window seat bench, carpeting, and enough space for the 24 students in the class. Outside of the meeting area were various sized wooden tables, some of which could accommodate only two students, some designed for 4, and some that were pushed together for a larger sized table that up to even 12 students could sit at. The walls were lined with books and materials. Coats and boots were left in the hall. Pencils and markers were common property, as were paper, tissues, and other supplies. Each student had two large three-ring binders. One seemed to be for current work and the other kept as a portfolio.

The day there began with a message to the students on the white board easel, a math problem, and a list of things for the students to start working on - typically beginning with making a list of things that they planned to accomplish for the day. The teacher discussed the day's plan for each student and signed each one as the day began. Students conversed a bit and then gradually started on their work.

The typical pattern of the day was to work all morning, with an interruption some time during the morning for a math class, clean up and meet to discuss things just before lunch. Recess and then lunch, followed by either an additional work time or a group activity time. This meant large blocks of time where the student could choose what to work on, with various constraints.

One of the things that still rather discomfits me is the word "choice" as it was used in that school. In the classrooms that I was in, the curriculum was broken into 3 week blocks, where certain activities in each of the disciplines were to be accomplished. The different activities that were required to be done were called "choices", presumably because the student could choose which one to do on which day and at which time, but, in essence, most of them were not really choices, as I think about them. The task was prescribed, e.g., read this and figure out a solution to the problem presented or learn these vocabulary words. Sometimes there were optional ways to demonstrate the accomplishment of a task, but usually, there was very limited amount of what I would call choice, i.e., a student could NOT choose to not do a particular task that s/he didn't like.

So, what do I think? I liked it much better than I expected to. The environment was respectful of both students' and teachers' needs. There was a snack area, where students could get a mid-morning snack whenever they wanted (only 2 people in the snack area at a time). There was a chart by the door to indicate when students had left the room for work, the rest room, or a physical activity (also one of the prescribed list of activities on the list). The aide from one classroom or the other would accompany the students to the gym or outside, depending on the physical activity on the list and how many students wanted to do the activity at the time. The classroom was busy and productive.

The negatives - I saw little differentiation of the activities, with the exception of math. And two students seemed to be floundering a bit. I suppose it is actually good that I only saw two students really floundering, but it is interesting to me to ponder why they were floundering. One student who seemed to have difficulty seemed to be both lazy and unsure of himself. He always worked with a friend and usually the friend was doing the lion's share of the work. If there was a way to accomplish the task with minimal effort and minimal quality, that was the way he did it. He avoided anything that was difficult or required significant effort. He was way behind in finishing most of his work. When the regular teacher and I discussed him, it was clear that this was a recurrent pattern. He wasn't unable, just unwilling.

Another student had difficulty for entirely different reasons: many of the tasks were simply too complex or too difficult for her. She required a lot more support in just about everything than any of the other students. This, even though it was done tactfully, seemed to set her apart.

And there were still conflicts between and among the students. Although the behavior in the classroom was, in general, excellent, there was still some emotional bullying, necessitating some teacher intervention.

The teachers in the school made some tough choices. One was to do without "specials" teachers for music, PE, and library, which are standard in the rest of the school district, in favor of aides for each classroom.

I would be interested in trying this out for a longer time. I would like to see if it actually does facilitate accommodating students at their own levels, and would thus be a model for inclusive gifted education or even inclusion of special ed students. From what I could see, there were only very mild learning difficulties with the one student. There were two very advanced math students in one of the classrooms, so I do know that mathematical prowess was accommodated. I could not see evidence of any other advanced provisions, but I freely admit that this might have been less visible with reading/writing, and to some extent social studies and science.

An aside: with no formal music classes, that subject may have been considered short changed, but the upper grades did put on a musical every year and at least one student, who was an outstanding singer, chose to attend this school and was extremely supportive of it, even though he had to go outside of school to get his music instruction.