Rebuttal to Chip Lorenzo

Rebuttal to “Exclusion in a Montessori Classroom” by Chip DeLorenzo

By Charlotte Cushman

Chip DeLorenzo, co-author of Positive Discipline in the Montessori Classroom, wrote an article called “Exclusion in a Montessori Classroom” where he lists a few aspects of the Montessori method that can “make patterns of exclusion more difficult to resolve.” The features he mentioned were smaller class sizes, which make it harder for children to form new relationships and years in a classroom with the same children, which presents opportunities for children to get to know each other “maybe, a little too well.” He also said, “… a Montessori classroom is a hub of activity. Montessori children have the freedom to choose their work partners and playmates and often work together independently. In this active environment, exclusion can develop under the radar” and a pattern may be established that will require intervention. Interestingly, his focus was only on what he considered to be negative aspects, he did not talk about the wonderful features of Montessori that foster healthy social development and prevent unkind exclusion.

I do not have concerns that there are aspects of the Montessori method that can “make patterns of exclusion more difficult to resolve.” DeLorenzo is wrong about Montessori.

First, he is wrong about class sizes. Maria Montessori herself stated that the ideal class size is 28 to 35 children in order to have a balanced community.[1] Ideally, classes are not small, they are large. At any rate, class size is outside anyone’s control, no matter whether in a public or private school. Schools have no control on how many children live in their district and how many will enroll in their school. One has to learn to adjust to his circumstances, not try to adjust the circumstances to himself.

Second, children don’t necessarily stay in Montessori for years and years. Children’s House is pre-elementary and the child is there for 3 to 4 years. And in the case where they stay for their elementary years, it’s no longer than any other school. The fact that children get to know each other so well in Montessori is an advantage. Forming bonds based on understanding someone is necessary in order to establish good relationships. You do not toss out something good because there is a possibility that someone might misuse it, such as a friend who betrays another friend by using personal information against him. A bad person can take any positive and turn it into a negative if he chooses. He is the negative part of the equation and is the reason for the failure in the relationship, not the process of getting to know people well. Getting to know people well does not cause relationships to go south. Insecurity does.

His third objection is the entire nature of Montessori, that kids work independently and get to make a lot of their own decisions. The hubbub of activity is an advantage to good social development. The children are learning every day how to relate to their classmates because they have the freedom to move about the room to observe and interact with them. They learn first-hand about social interaction. It isn’t hard to spot children who are cruelly excluded, if there are any, because of that movement and contact which allows the teacher to observe and interact with the children individually.

DeLorenzo’s argument appears to rest on two premises. He doesn’t define exclusion and he mainly focuses on what he considers to be negatives about Montessori, so he seems to think that all exclusion is the same and equally bad, and all exclusion must be eliminated from schools. Exclusion is the deliberate act of omission, but are all exclusions negative? He didn’t explain. His second premise looks like he holds the utopian idea that there should exist a school system that would eliminate a human tendency; we just have to build the perfect wheel.

In this article, I will explain why Montessori does not lead to more negative exclusions than any other type of school, and actually results in less. Additionally, I will cover what kinds of exclusions happen among children, and how a Montessori teacher could handle it.

The authentic Montessori classroom.

Guests to authentic Montessori classrooms cannot help but notice the perpetual interaction of the children as they work. As Chip DeLorenzo said, there is a hub of activity. There is a constant buzzing of conversation as children hover over each other, watching each other work. “No, John, you shake the bottle first, then you put the polish in the dish.” In another corner, a couple of four-year-olds work on the geometric solids, placing the shapes in different parts of the room and then walking around to find them again, discussing the difference between an ovoid and an ellipsoid as they do so. A three-year-old needs her shoe tied, but the teacher is busy, so a six-year-old comes over and ties it for her. A new student is feeling sad and bursts into tears, so a child leaves his work and puts his arms around her, saying, “Don’t worry, Mommy will come back.” Suddenly, a two-year-old spills his work on the tile floor and several children rush over to help. One time, a visitor who had been observing my class said, “I was told that children don’t socialize in Montessori classrooms. Nothing could be further from the truth!” I replied, “Yes. And not only do the children socialize, they do it well.”

Montessori children are impressive in their concentration, independence, thinking skills and initiative, but they are also remarkable in the manner in which they interact with each other, and this is true even in the upper grades. Even though their personalities could not be more diverse, I never cease to be moved at the regard that they have for each other. They range from the child who is so shy he can barely be heard when he speaks, to the chatterbox who cannot refrain from letting his every thought be known to every person within hearing range. There are the quiet children who love to take some time to be by themselves, and the boisterous children who are constantly whooping with laughter. Outside of class, some prefer to read; others want to play ball. There are differences among them, yet they all get along. Not that all children are best friends or that no one squabbles, but they all treat each other with consideration and they all have a good time. Another thing I noticed—there is no “in-crowd.” It was very different for me when I was growing up and had a fear of “not fitting in” with the group.

There are many reasons why the children socialize so well, but the most important one is the most surprising for non-Montessorians. It is that the primary attention in the classroom is on the child’s individual cognitive development, not his social development. Montessori children focus on developing their own minds through their work. As the child does his work, he is developing his inner self, building up his confidence in himself as he acquires knowledge. The confident child has a better chance of socializing successfully, because when a child values his own life, he understands the value of someone else’s and can treat others respectfully. Only when a child develops in this manner is he ready for social relationships.

Another reason why they get along so well is because the entire Montessori system is based on educating the children individually and, because of that, they respect and accept each other as individuals. The Montessori child progresses academically at his own pace; he does not have to advance as part of a group. No child is required to “keep up” with others or to “slow down” so that others can catch up. As a result, no child feels he must be the same as everyone else. He can be his own person, and he accepts others as being their own persons too. Since everyone is allowed to be different, everyone is respected, even if they aren’t necessarily liked. Every child in Montessori is regarded as an individual, as unique, with his own distinctive thoughts and interests.

Fundamental developmental need.

Other theories of the child’s cognitive and social development do not agree with Montessori’s views. Chip DeLorenzo stated:

A cornerstone of Adlerian theory of social development is the idea that we, as human beings, are fundamentally motivated to find belonging (“I am accepted and loved”) and significance (“I matter and am important”) within our families and communities.

The premise that we primarily strive to be accepted by others in order to find our self-worth is inaccurate. Our feeling of significance does not come from others, it comes from our own estimate of ourselves. Are we competent? Are we moral? The child’s sense of confidence comes from his success at dealing with reality. Does he understand it? Can he grasp what he is trying to learn? Can he attain success over time when he puts forth enough effort and works at a task? Does he feel capable? Does he have parents who help him to know and appreciate himself, help him learn about the real world, and understand his need for knowledge? Do his parents express joy at his developing independence?

Montessori herself said, “The most important side of human development is the mental side…Intelligence is what distinguishes man from the animals, and the building up of his intelligence is the first thing to occur. Everything else waits upon this.” [2] Notice she said everything else waits upon this. Everything. That includes social relationships. What did Montessori think was fundamental to the child’s development? In her own words: “The first essential for the child’s development is concentration. It lays the whole basis for his character and social behavior.” [3] Also, notice she included social behavior. Pursuit of knowledge and the ability to concentrate comes first, not to longing to belong.

The idea that a child’s primary goal is to feel like he belongs to his social group did not originate with Alder and Dreikurs. It has its roots in the ideas of John Dewey, the father of Progressive Education, who was one of Montessori’s biggest critics.[4] He thought that there is no objective truth, there is no free will, the child is determined by social relationships, pursuing knowledge should be discouraged, and the teacher is not the authority. Dewey thought the child is created by his peers which led to his group-based approach. In the Citizen of the World, Montessori emphasizes the child’s role as the active constructor of his own personality and capabilities. Dewey’s method is group and socially centered, and Montessori’s method is individualistic and knowledge centered.

The real reason why some children become unkind excluders.

When Dewey’s educational pedagogy is put into action, dependency becomes an issue. Children get the message that friends are more important than learning, so they seek their approval. Because learning is not a priority, they seek out knowledge from their peers. They have a hard time coming to their own conclusions and look to others to do their thinking for them. When a person is not able to think independently, he feels insecure.

When cognitive development and individuality are not priorities, unkind social exclusion becomes a problem. Gangs begin to form when children feel insecure in their grasp of reality, feel frightened of other children, or feel unsafe. The outcome of insecurity is the need to feel superior to others which results in the attempt to make others feel inferior by excluding, snubbing, bullying, or rejecting them. The gang member is constantly worried that he could be excluded so makes great attempts to exclude others first. Unkind exclusions are done by insecure children who are mean to others and reject them.

A common misconception is the notion that children misbehave when they don’t feel like they belong to their social group. This is a wrong premise and a considerable mistake. Groups of children, good buddies, can create havoc together and the leaders of those groups can act emboldened because they have followers. Loners, or even children who are not well liked, can be very well behaved. Loving, caring parents might be faced with raising a disruptive, ill-mannered child. Love and acceptance aren’t enough to determine behavior.

The actual reason why the child misbehaves is because he is not able to fully reason yet like an adult. He lacks independence, self-control, and life experience. He has a limited understanding of concepts because his language is still developing. He does not understand context. He doesn’t understand what is real and what isn’t real yet, so he tests reality. He does not know the difference between right and wrong; nor does he understand cause and effect. He thinks the world revolves around him (which is why he blames himself if his parents get a divorce). He lives in the here and now; he lacks the ability to foresee consequences and to think long range. He needs to learn about danger and injury. The child does not have the same context as an adult, and this needs to be understood in order to discipline properly.

The child’s behavior is based on the conclusions he draws from his knowledge and the choices he makes because of those conclusions; it is based on his ability to reason. A child may understand that doing something wrong is inappropriate, but not understand all the ramifications of that wrongdoing. He does not have enough conceptual knowledge to understand all the reasons why he is being told to stop doing what he wants to do. He does not entirely grasp logic; he is still learning about what exists.

Children who feel insecure because they don’t feel like they belong to their social group is a result of Dewey’s educational pedagogy which makes children feel like being liked matters more than the pursuit of knowledge. The insecure child is insecure because he lacks knowledge about reality. The solution is to focus on the excitement of learning about life, not an obsession about his social acceptance. Putting social concerns before the acquisition of knowledge, is putting the cart before the horse.

Unkind exclusion is a result of insecure children, not the Montessori method.

The notion that exclusion is more of a problem in Montessori schools is false. Montessori children go through the normal stages of learning how to handle social conflicts just like all children, but since they have a good foundation in developing self-confidence, there is much less of a chance to see gangs roaming the hallways at an authentic Montessori school. The children do not feel a need to fit in because of Montessori’s individualistic approach, but if the child feels unsuccessful in the pursuit of knowledge, if he feels incompetent, that he can’t deal with reality, that reality is unknowable, and/or if he can’t think straight, a problem erupts. Immaturity and/or a lack of self-control can also contribute to a social problem.

A difficulty can also surface if the teacher does not protect the child’s rights by clearly explaining the rules and enforcing them. Rules are not only used to help children to learn concentration and self-control, rules are also used to protect the well-behaved children from those who are disrespectful and abusive. If the child’s rights are not respected, the children may not feel safe at school. Discipline must be consistent and firm (not mean), and tailored to each individual child. Some children might need a gentle reminder of a rule, another child who is a persistent rule breaker might need to be separated from his classmates as was done in Montessori’s original schools.[5]

If a teacher thinks that children are consumed with the desire to be accepted, this will also affect the social climate. Adults will treat children according to what they think is true about children. The wrong premises about the child lead to the wrong expectations and conclusions about him. If people think a child is misbehaving because he feels unaccepted, the discipline he receives will most likely be wrong. If he receives correction, it will most likely come with sympathy or the correction might be too soft. The adult might assume that “unaccepting children” are responsible for the misbehavior of someone else and blame them for his misbehavior. If adults think that the child’s primary goal is to belong, the adults will treat the children accordingly, and the child will get the message that belonging is essential. For example, in Dewey’s progressive schools, children are forced to share, encouraged to refrain from playing alone, pressured to be popular, discouraged from learning (i.e. teased for being “book worms”), and so on. Children for generations have been educated with Dewey’s pedagogy, and the desire to learn has been squelched. Even Montessorians have been influenced by the view that before anything else, a child needs to belong.

Adult guidance depends on the context.

When children do have conflict, what should the adults do when the children ask for help? Authoritarians think the adult should control the situation and solve the problems for the child, but this encourages dependence rather than independence; the child will not learn how to solve his own problems. Those who have been influenced by Dewey think the problems should be handled by the group, which also encourages dependence. Dreikurs thinks that the adult should stay completely out of children’s fights. Whether or not adults give assistance depends on the personalities of the children involved, what they are fighting about, and the manner in which they are fighting. Children do not automatically know how to resolve conflict and when faced with social difficulties, they can be at a loss as to what to do about it, and need our guidance.

Adults should not stay out of fights that involve physical violence, damage to property, and/or emotional or psychological damage (i.e., bullying). If a safety issue is involved, the teacher must stop the violent act immediately. Children need to learn that it is okay to be angry, but it is not permissible to hit, bite, punch, threaten, or harm anyone else in any manner. The child will not be more inclined to resolve the fight differently if the adult stays out of it. To a child, allowing violence means it is acceptable. A child once said to a teacher: “Well, you saw us do it and didn’t do anything about it so we thought it was okay to do.” Children make judgements about what is permissible behavior by what adults permit.

Arguments.

Children argue because they take reality seriously and are trying to figure things out. They are confronting many new experiences and they want to know what is true and what isn’t true. As they are figuring this out, they make errors. Then they announce their conviction and another child disagrees. For both children, their sense of order is upset. Add to that the fact that they think when someone says something, that makes it true, and the problem is magnified. So, they argue. “There are four ‘Home Alone’ movies.” “No, there aren’t.” Or they come running to the adult: “Miss Char! Stephanie says I don’t have a dog and I do! Do I?” “John says my picture isn’t pretty. Is it?”

When children argue over the facts of reality, ask them questions to get them to think about it. “How do you know there are four movies?” “Why do you think he is saying that you don’t have a dog?” “What do you think about your picture?” Try to get the child to come to conclusions on the facts based on his own observations. However, if a child is just trying to be silly or argumentative by denying the truth, say, “Yes, Stephanie, she has a dog.” Or, you could ask Stephanie how she knows that her friend doesn’t have a dog. When there are other disagreements about facts, tell the child how he can find out. “Go count the addition beads and see how much two plus two is.” If there is no other way for the child to figure out the answer to a factual question, such as “What color is that?” the adult needs to answer.

Attempts to control.

As children form friendships, they will try to figure out how to get their friends to do what they want them to do, so they may try to control them. “You won’t be my best friend if…” or “You can’t come to my birthday party unless you…” They don’t understand that you can have more than one friend, so when their friend wants to be with someone else, their feelings can get hurt. Most children will learn with experience that they can’t control other people, and that friends don’t have to be together all the time, but if one child is being too controlling and overbearing with a timid, unassertive child, the adult needs to intervene. The unassertive child may need some coaching on how to speak up and say what he really wants. Or the overbearing child may need to be stopped when he tries to boss his friend around; children should not get in the habit of trying to control others. Both children are dependent on one another and may need to be separated for periods of time so that they see they will be fine on their own.

Communication.

Children can also have conflict in their social relationships because they lack communication skills. They don’t know what to say or do in order to resolve problems, and may end up hitting in frustration and anger. “Did you kick her?” “Well, I don’t like her.” Or they may hit because they like someone. “I was just trying to get his attention.” Some children may say something in order to get a rise out of their friend in a hurtful manner when their friend doesn’t do what they think he should. Grace and courtesy lessons can help them learn how to communicate and resolve social misunderstandings and problems by practicing what to say to their friend when they are upset by using “I-messages”: “I feel hurt because you won’t work with me.”[6] “I like you and would like to be your friend.” Then allow the children to role play and practice.

Exclusions.

If a child does not focus on developing his own self first, his knowledge about reality is not first-hand, so he cannot know anything for sure and will feel confused and scared inside. He may look to others to take care of him. Friendships are painful, because he is insecure in who he is and constantly worries whether his friends like him. This may drive him to try to control them, or he may avoid friendships altogether. Or, as explained earlier, he may join a gang and become an unkind excluder. The self-confident child, however, views friends as a positive value, someone he can share his thoughts with and whose company he can enjoy.

It is a normal human tendency for confident children and the rest of us to have a preference for certain people and make friends, and it might be a group of friends. It excludes others, but it isn’t unkind. When a person marries, he or she only includes one person and excludes the rest. Again, that is not unkind. Sometimes we don’t share values or interests with certain people and we might exclude them, but that doesn’t mean we are or should be rude to them. As we go through life, we make choices as to whom we want to associate with. Children often are hurt by exclusions and may need our help in learning how to understand and deal with them. Here is a partial list of exclusions that children encounter and some suggestions for handling them.

Temporary exclusions. Not all exclusions are bad; some are temporary. When a child is new to the school, the other children need some time to get to know him and make friends. If a child has not matured enough or perhaps if he is too young, he is not ready for friendships. Children who are late arrivals to class can be an interruption to activities that have already started, and exclusion is nothing personal. Usually, it is best for the newcomer to be patient, watch, not interrupt, and wait.

Self-exclusion. Some children engage in self-exclusion. The child is stepping back from being included because he wants to be alone or maybe he wants to work with a new friend.

Justified Exclusions. Maybe the reason the child was excluded is that he did something that caused the children to reject him. Maybe he interferes with their work, tries to control the direction of their activity too much, or abuses them physically (hits, pushes, spits, trips, etc.) or verbally (name-calls, uses inappropriate language, bosses them around, etc.). In this case, exclusion is justified. It can be very effective for the excluded child to experience that natural consequence, and the children need to be encouraged to tell him exactly why he is excluded. “You get in my face.” “You keep touching my work and I told you to stop.” The offending child isn’t going to change his behavior if he doesn’t know what he is doing that bothers the other children. Children actually think about how to interact properly. A child in my class said this to another child, “Can I watch you if I be nice to you? If I not be nice, then I can’t watch you?”

If the excluded child is a bully, or if he is the one doing the excluding, he needs to be separated from the other children rather than trying to get him to socialize more. His bully behavior will just frighten the other children more. What he needs is to gain confidence in himself so teachers and parents need to think of ways to help him find something to do that he can be successful at. Bullies need to be dealt with unrelenting firmness. The bully does not have the psychological strength to improve his behavior without help and any weakness in discipline just encourages him to misbehave even more.

Misinterpreted exclusions. These types of exclusions can occur when a child doesn’t know why he wasn’t included and/or assumes it was done for the wrong reason. If a child is upset that he is being excluded, it is best to ask him questions to see if he knows why he is not included. Find out if he asked the other children why he wasn’t allowed to play with them. Most of the time, he hasn’t asked them, so he has no idea why he was not invited to play. Tell him he needs to find out, because if he did something to upset his friends, he needs that information so that he can change his behavior. If the reason is unrelated to him, he needs to know that too so that he doesn’t assume he did something wrong. Often, the rejection has nothing to do with the child who was excluded. When I have asked children why someone can’t play, I hear, “I just want to be alone,” or “I want to be with another friend,” or “I’m having a bad day.” It was nothing personal against the child who was excluded.

Since children are still learning cause and effect, they can draw the wrong conclusion about another child. A child may assume another child is mad at him because of a look on his face or something he did. Some of the child’s wrong conclusions need to be corrected immediately. “Elyse doesn’t like me.” “How do you know?” the teacher asked. “Because she walked away from me while we were looking at books.” The child doesn’t know that there could be other reasons why she walked away. “Go ask Elyse why she walked away.” When the child came back, the teacher asked, “What did she say?” “She said she went to get a drink of water.” Children need to learn that they need to find more information before forming a conclusion.

“No one likes me. Josh doesn’t want to work with me,” said Cory, a shy, unassertive child. Children make assumptions and if the supposition is made that no one likes them, it will affect their future relationships negatively. “I think you should ask Josh why he doesn’t want to work with you.” And knowing Cory’s fearful personality, the teacher added, “Do you need my help?” “Yes,” said Cory. The teacher called Josh over to them. Cory asked him why and Josh said, “I just want to work by myself for a while.” Josh was asked, “So you are still friends with Cory then? Do you still like him?” “Yes.”

It is detrimental for children to automatically draw the conclusion that the reason they were not included is that they aren’t liked. They may grow up and assume every time they aren’t invited to a party, that it is their fault. Or every time the boss doesn’t give them a raise, it is because the boss doesn’t like them. Or every time someone doesn’t say “Hi,” it’s because he is angry. Making these kinds of assumptions causes unnecessary distress. Not everyone gets invited to special events; people can only invite so many. Maybe the boss can’t afford to give anybody a raise. Perhaps the person who didn’t say “Hi” was absorbed in his own thoughts about a problem. Things are not always what they seem, and it is best to look at things objectively. Now is the time to help the child begin to understand this.

When children claim that no one likes them, it could be because they think that in order to be friends, the friends must be together all the time. This is a common misconception. It could also be the case that the child simply has a short memory or is confusing his feelings with reality. If a child claims that no one likes him and then sometime later he is doing a project with a friend, this needs to be pointed out to him. “I thought you said no one liked you and that no one wants to work with you. Cameron is working with you right now.”

If a child seems sincerely upset about someone’s lack of friendship, offer your sympathy and understanding. “I can see you are sad. Did you ask Sally why she doesn’t want to be your friend?” “Can you think of any solutions for this problem?” Or suggest solutions, “Maybe you could ask Rory if you could eat lunch with her today.” “Can you think of someone else to work with today?” If a child pressures the adult to solve his problem, the adult can say, “I can’t force children to be friends with each other.” Or, “She doesn’t have to be your friend.” Or, if applicable, “You need to start being nice to her and then maybe she’ll be your friend.”

The child who has done nothing wrong. What about the child who has done nothing wrong and is still being excluded? While I have found that this type of situation isn’t very common among Montessori children, there are still times when individual, insecure children try to control relationships through exclusion. The parent or teacher of the excluded child should explain that children who do this don’t know how to make and keep friends and encourage him to find new friends. If this doesn’t work and the child feels especially miserable, a talk with the child’s teacher is advisable.

Classroom meetings. Should the behavior of unkind children be discussed by everyone at a classroom meeting? Meetings can be valuable to discuss problems when most of the class is affected or upset, or to discuss rules or behaviors in a general way with the children. And, I agree that these discussions can be very productive. However, behavior problems of individual children should not be on the discussion table. Misbehaving children need to hear what they are doing that bothers other people, and to hear it from the people they are bothering, but it needs to be handled on an individual basis. Handling it where everybody “gets a say” is not appropriate. Proper behavior is determined objectively, not at the whims of one’s peer group and not with children who may not even be involved in the problem. Children should not be learning how to control others, nor should they be learning that power over others is desirable. In addition, giving all the children the option to participate in that manner encourages them to be busybodies. Some things are none of other children’s business. Scheduling classroom meetings every time children have squabbles with one another is a waste of time.

Dependency. When a child is consumed with the desire to have friends, rather than the desire to learn, the stage is set for dependency later on. Children like this grow up worrying about what other people think rather than evaluating reality firsthand. It is better to know what you think and expect others to live up to your standards than to agonize about acceptance all the time. If you have an excluded child or student, give him support and love, acknowledge that it is hard to be excluded, and reassure him that he will find friends when he is ready. Help him to focus on what is truly important now—the development of his own independence.

Conclusion.

I’m sure most everyone has had the experience of being excluded. It isn’t fun, but everyone needs to learn how to deal with it. You can’t be invited to every party. Besides, being the outsider isn’t always a bad thing; it depends on what you were excluded from and why you were excluded. Maybe it was because you were an independent thinker. When I was a child, I didn’t go to a Montessori school. I went to schools where there were always “in” crowds. I wanted them to accept me, but I was rejected. Now, as an adult looking back, as painful as it was, I am glad that it happened, because I think I am stronger for it. It wasn’t the end of the world to be excluded. And as it turned out, the kids in the in crowd, who snubbed me, were not aligned with my values and therefore not worth my time. I found true lifetime friends without them.

Most of us were raised in schools that emphasized “getting along with others” and we grew up thinking that there was something wrong with children who weren’t accepted by their peers in school. What were the standards for acceptance, and what had to be done to meet them? No answer, yet those who were rejected by the group were made to feel like a scar on the face of humanity. Good social relationships are one of the highest sources of happiness in life. Once a child develops himself, he will have values, and thus a reason to want friends—the sharing of those values. Friendships like this mean more than having a friend for friendship's sake, or for the sake of feeling accepted.

The self-confident person does not go through life wringing his hands fretting about whether he is accepted and liked by others. His first thought when he meets someone new is not “What does he think of me?” His first thought is “What do I think of him?” “What kind of a person is he?” “What kind of standards does he live by?” Do we really want children going through life relying on others to make them feel significant? The way out of insecurity is not being accepted by others. The way out is to be accepted by yourself.

Education that focuses on socialization, produces children who are focused on others rather than on the facts of reality. Without knowledge, they don’t know how to think or reason. They are insecure, so they seek safety in groups. It is interesting that in Montessori schools, which emphasize individuality, the children feel no need to form or join “in” groups to gain acceptance because they already accept themselves. Instead, these self-confident children seek out other individuals who value learning as they do. When children have work to do that they work hard on and enjoy, and when their friends share this same joy, they feel a bond with their classmates. And that is how it should be.

[1] Maria Montessori, The Child, Society and the World

[2] Maria Montessori, The Absorbent Mind, (New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1967), p. 72

[3] Maria Montessori, The Absorbent Mind, (New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1967), p. 222.

[4] https://www.montessorianswers.com/progressives.html

[5] Maria Montessori, The Discovery of the Child, (India: Kalakshetra Publications, 1966), p. 86.

[6] The idea of “I-messages” came from Thomas Gordon, Parent Effectiveness Training, (New York: Peter H. Wyden, Inc., 1970), pp. 103-121.