The Teacher is The Preacher

I find it notable that Montessori suggests that Calvinist and Protestant theology, in turn, affected the pedagogy and methodology of early educators (Montessori, 40).  David Cohen, in his article Teaching Practice: Plus Que Ca Change, draws attention to a similar relationship (Cohen, 42).  In short, both authors argue that theology precedes methodology.  In other words, Calvinist and Protestant Christian doctrines boil down to an idea that man/woman is inherently flawed and in need of redemption.  Therefore, man/woman needs to beat the soul into holy submission, until the evil desires of the sinful heart are controlled by pious discipline.  Needless to say, this theology is inherent in the pedagological architecture of the early school of the 17^th and 18^th century, whereby one teacher (who holds the sword of truth) passes down knowledge and discipline upon his/her students.  It seems that many teachers bought into the idea that kids are inherently flawed creatures, prone to clumsiness and silliness unless the will of discipline is thrust upon them.  Therefore, early schools were a mirror to the major religious movement sweeping the country. 

Montessori, in contrast, seems to have developed her pedagogy from Rousseau’s romanticism ideology.  On page 40 of his book, he quotes a popular Rousseauism, “in man all is good, but everything is spoilt in contact with society.”  In this quote we find the heart of Montessori’s pedagogy – that all children are inherently good, and they learn when they come in contact with the natural order of the world. 

These are very meaningful passages to me because I grew up in a Protestant home and attended a Protestant Liberal Arts University.  I have since walked away from many of my childhood religious beliefs, but the theology of my youth still influences my pedagogy, as much as I might try to hamper it.  As a practitioner working at KIPP, the bootcampish discipline embedded in the school culture seemed like second nature to me, since it mimicked the theology I grew up with.  Likewise, our principals encouraged us to follow the scholastic inheritance practice of teaching – a model best described as a teacher holding knowledge and passing it down to students through dictation.  This was the drug of choice.  I was not comfortable with this model.  As I taught, I felt pangs of occupational dissonance.  The way I was teaching didn’t align with my values.

 I know very little about the Montessori method.  I have never seen a Montessori classroom at work.  However, I do believe that a child is not a tabula rasa (blank slate) in need of discipline.  I believe a child’s mind is like a computer: functioning, and capable of discovering the order in life.  Yet, what I do not know is how to match my core beliefs with a teaching practice.  I have not seen it done. 

Montessori, M.  (1974).  Childhood education.  (J.A. Joosten, trans.)  Chicago, IL: Henry Regnery Company.  Part II, Chapter 1 (p.25-50). 

Cohen, D. (1988). Teaching practice: Plus que ça change. In P.W. Jackson (Ed.), Contributing to educational change (pp. 27-84). Berkeley, CA: McCrutcham Publishing Corporation.