One of the attractions of Montessori's method of education, deriving from its scientific basis, was her requirement that the teachers were properly trained. Montessori used the term 'directress' instead of teachers, which indicated a different relationship between the adult and child thus reinforcing the scientific basis of the system. According to Cunningham (2000) there were concerns in Britain about the quality of elementary trained teachers and an emphasis on teachers being trained appropriately was welcomed.
In the summer of 1914 the Montessori Society held a conference at East Runton, attended with about two hundred and fifty educationists from all over the United Kingdom, in the hope of uniting the growing number of "educational progressives under the Montessori banner" (Cohen, 1974, p. 60). However not all the delegates were sympathetic to Montessori. The attempt to use this conference to "bring together not only representatives of the Montessori Movement, but all kindred movements", while receiving majority support ultimately foundered because of Montessori's commitment to retaining the purity and integrity of her method (Times Educational Supplement, 4 August 1914 cited in Brehony, 1994, pp. 5 - 6).
Any institution to which Dr. Montessori lends her name must plainly be one that embodies the whole of her teaching, and her teaching only. Dr. Montessori has consistently on this account declined to approve any schemes for training "Montessori" teachers not under her own control (Radice, 1920, p. 163).
If the organisation wanted to continue using the name Montessori they had to restrict themselves to propaganda on behalf of Montessori only and so the Montessori Society Committee disbanded. The 'kindred movement' led to the organisation of the Conference of New Ideals in Education and later merged to become the New Education Fellowship (Cohen, 1974) .
major problem facing the Society was the lack of teachers, as Montessori's capacity to train teachers could never meet the ongoing demand. Plans had been announced in the fall of 1914 for Montessori to come to London to present a training course but the war interceded and Montessori did not make it to London until five years later (Kramer, 1988).
With Montessori training unavailable in London plans were made to establish an early childhood training college at Gipsy Hill in 1917, offering Montessori training along with other methods. Lillian de Lissa, the Director of the Adelaide Kindergarten College, was hired to head the college. In 1913, she travelled to Rome and trained under Montessori at her second international course held in 1914 (Petersen, 1983).
De Lissa and another Montessori trained teacher, Belle Rennie, planned to give students mainly a Montessori education along with an understanding of other methods at the training college (Co hen, 1974). The prospectus of the College confirmed this.
The aim of the College course is to give students a wide a survey of modern methods as possible. But as Dr. Montessori is the latest of our great educational pioneers, and is also the most systematic of all the apostles of self - development, special attention is given to her work, a thorough study is made of the principles underlying her method, and training is given in the use of the use of her apparatus, and in its physiological and psychological implications (Petersen, 1983, p. 260)
However, when Montessori heard she reacted strongly, "taking pains publicly to repudiate the plan and the two heretics" (Co hen, 1974, p. 60). Only she was allowed to train Montessori teachers. The Montessori element of the programme was quickly dropped (Petersen, 1983).
The First World War only produced a transitory lull in the increasing interest and debate concerning Montessori's system of education. In 1917 the English translations of The Advanced Montessori Method - Spontaneous Activity in
Education �d The Montessori Elementary Material were published. The two volumes extending Montessori's method into elementary school were widely read and discussed (Kramer, 1988).
When the war ended Montessori made plans to visit England to give a training course under her direction in London, starting in September 1919. Two thousand applications were received and from these two hundred and fifty
students were accepted (Brehony, 1994). Montessori's visit generated
widespread publicity and, as a result, the Montessori Society in London
increased to over a thousand members (Radice, 1920). An office was
established in Tavistock Square, a "popular location for radical causes" (Cunningham, 2001, p. 441), and in other English cities branches were formed. During her time in England Montessori had a hectic schedule of lectures, meetings and receptions, with the most celebrated one being a formal dinner at the Savoy Hotel chaired by the President of the Board of Education. Her extensive tour ended in January 1920 but she planned to return to England in 1921 to give another training course (Brehony, 1994; Kramer, 1988).
While Montessori was in England, in the winter of 1919, a public appeal was launched by a group of Montessori enthusiasts to collect funds in order to establish a Montessori training institute. The amount raised was insufficient so the project had to be post-phoned (Kramer, 1988).
At the end of 1920 when the news was announced that Montessori would be giving her training course in London from April to July 1921, the fact that the teachers would only be able to teach in Montessori schools but not train others was highlighted. Lady Betty Balfour, in a public statement, commented on the lack of trained Montessori teachers and asked when Dr. Montessori "will
delegate the office of training teachers to those she has already trained" (Times
C. A. Bang, the official organiser of the Montessori society, speaking on behalf of Montessori, stated that she did not consider any British Montessori teacher sufficiently perfected in her system to train others. Instead he proposed that the best way to provide more trained teachers was to establish a Montessori teacher-training institute. Contributions were collected but again they were insufficient for what Montessori had in mind. However, by the summer of 1921, a Montessori department was established at st. George's School in Harpenden, under the guidance of Claude Claremont, who was a devoted follower of Montessori and sought to protect the purity of her teaching (Co hen, 1974). Montessori's ideas for the education of older children were put into practice (Kramer, 1988).
Brehony (1994) considered Montessori's visit to be the zenith of the movement in England. The Montessori Society suffered a damaging split after a meeting in September 1921 . Tension had becoming evident between members of the Montessori Society in London concerning their role in furthering the Montessori movement. Some members felt that they should be carrying out Montessori's personal directives while the majority of the membership was more pragmatic in their adoption of Montessori's methods. At the September meeting of the Society Dr. Kimmins, Chief Inspector of the Education Department with the London Country Council, spoke on the 'Future of the Montessori Movement' . In his widely reported talk he stated:
It is always a grave misfortune for a name to be associated with a movement, because there is no finality in education and the individual teacher must vary her method as time goes on. There must be scope for the personality of the teacher in any scheme of
reform, otherwise it is doomed to failure. If, however, the
divergence resulting from the original scheme becomes great, the name of the founder of the original scheme should be omitted in the
description (Kimmins cited in Times Educational Supplement, Oct I,
1921 in Kramer, 1988, p. 272).
Essentially this was a plea towards a wider movement than just Montessori's system of education. Kimmins, along with others, believed that the society
could include methods of teaching which did not use the Montessori didactic materials but which were inspire by Montessori's ideals. According to Kramer (1988, p. 272) it was this distinction "between the method and the movement, between Montessori's system of education and a larger trend toward reform of education beginning with that system, which became the heart of the issue from now on" and split her English supporters. The same thing had occurred amongst her supporters in the movement in the United States.
Montessori responded to Kimmins' talk by withdrawing her name from the Society and resigned as President. The members split into two groups, with the largest becoming The Auto-Education Allies and then eventually the Dalton Association (Brehony, 1994). Dr. Kimmins was prominent in this association, which promoted the Dalton plan developed by Helen Parkhurst. A Montessori trained teacher, Parkhurst had worked closely with Montessori in the United States before breaking away and developing her own system, known as the Dalton Laboratory Plan. From 1925 onwards the movement associated with the Dalton Plan began to replace the Montessori system as the focus of interest in British education (Kramer, 1988).
A smaller group of Montessori loyalist supporters headed by C. A. Band and Lily Hutchinson set up a provisional committee, with the intention of restoring Montessori as President. By 1922 they had exclusive ownership of Montessori's name.
Other committee members announced their withdrawal in order to "leave the field quite open for those who feel they can work under Dr. Montessori's Rules of Authorization," which they made no secret of finding "unworkable, because they are autocratic in conception," adding that "the rules of any Montessori Society should permit the same freedom to its members as the method
permits to the child" (Times Educational Supplement, January 21,
1922 cited in Kramer, 1988, p. 276).
advocated freedom, although with clear limitations, for the individual child in her system but this was in direct contrast to her style of dissemination (Cunningham, 2000) .
In January 1930 an English branch of the Association Montessori Internationale (AMI) was set up. In August 1929 Montessori and her son Mario founded the AMI to protect and promote the name of Montessori (See Appendix E). All the members of the existing London Montessori society transferred, becoming a branch of an organisation headed by Montessori herself (Kramer, 1988, p. 323- 333).
Mention has already been made of some schools that adopted the Montessori system. Cohen
(
1974, p. 57) further states that "the list of schools using the Montessori Method in the 'twenties reads like a Who's Who of English progressive education" [italics in original] . Progressive education thrived during this period due to the belief that "through educational reconstruction, war could be eliminated, a 'new man' created, and a brave new world ushered in" (Cohen, 1974, p. 57). In particular, progressives found the Montessori system entirely suited to do this. In fact William Boyd, one of her critics conceded in 1924 that she "will live in educational history as the leader and exemplar in the movement for individualised learning (Boyd cited in Cohen, 1974, p. 57).Although Montessori had been reluctant to delegate the training of teachers in England in 1923 she finally agreed to the establishment of two Montessori training colleges, St. Christopher's in Letchworth and St. George's located in Harpenden. The courses were two years in length and were preparatory to Montessori's own course of four months. Students only received a Montessori diploma when they had completed Montessori's course. Claude Claremont directed St. Christopher's School in Letchworth from 1923 until 1925, when he
became principal of the Montessori training colleges at London and Cranleigh (Cohen, 1974; Kramer, 1988).
Montessori was responsible for drawing up the syllabus. During the course the students " studied nothing but Montessori, by Montessori, with Montessorians. "We Montessori the students", boasted Claremont" (Cohen, 1974, p. 61).
When Montessori's ideas arrived in Britain other progressive thinkers including Margaret McMillan, Homer Lane, Susan Isaacs, Bertrand and Dora Russell, A. S. Neill, the Theosophists, and numerous other academics and public schools were developing their projects (DuCharme, 1992; May, 1997). They all arose in reaction to their dissatisfaction with the current. methods of education, which involved large passive classes, severe discipline, rote learning and rigid teaching methods (Lucas, 1994). According to Selleck (1974, p. 81), the progressive vision, in direct contrast, had common themes that included
11 growth, nature, instinct, freedom, play, activity, self-activity, innate goodness,
development, individuality, spontaneity, interest", with the notion of freedom leading to individuality and inner growth, development or self-realisation. Montessori's method appeared to offer an answer, especially in the infant schools, where much of the criticism had been directed.
The "Failure" of the Montessori Method
One of the main reasons for the failure of the Montessori method was Montessori's insistence that her method be delivered in its entirety. The process of adaptation to society was something that she recognised happening in young children but not in her own work. Many reasons have been put forward including her position as a woman asserting her views in the face of dissent as well as her profession as a doctor and an academic, which encouraged a confidence that brooked no challenge. Montessori was a charismatic personality who attracted supporters from around the world but
her dream and was subsequently required to defend her intellectual property in order to maintain her independence (Chisnall, 2002; Kramer, 1988).
I share Cohen's (1974, p. 51) view that the reason for the failure of the Montessori movement in England was " an illuminating case study in adoptive failure" . He maintained that it was not the method that failed to deliver but "deficiencies in the management of the reform" (Cohen, 1974, p. 51). The main reason amongst the deficiencies was Montessori's refusal to delegate responsibility for teacher training. When women such as Lillian de Lissa and Belle Rennie, who were both Montessori trained, planned to give students an understanding of Montessori and other methods of education at Gipsy Hill College, she reacted strongly. The Association Montessori Internationale was established in 1929 to safeguard the orthodoxy of the movement but Cohen states that by that time it was far too late. "In the 1930s progressive education everywhere in Europe was in retreat; Montessori was hit especially hard"
(Cohen, 1974, p. 62).
Cohen (1974) argues that a similar problem occurred in the United States. In the first introduction of the Montessori method in America, Montessori moved to halt development at the translation or interpretation phrase (Rambusch, 1992c). When the well-known and influential Alexander Graham Bells (Dr. Bell was the inventor of the telephone), became interested in her method, for example, they established a school in their Washington, DC home, early in 1912, and set up a Montessori Educational Association to stimulate wider public interest in her work. Others soon became interested in starting up societies. In 1913 the New England Montessori Association was established while in New York City the head of the Scudder School for Girls, Myron T. Scudder, gave a series of lectures for teachers on Montessori' method. When Montessori heard she reacted by sending a letter to The New York Times stating that only she could give a Montessori training course.
In view of this widespread interest I feel that the public should be able to obtain accurate information about those teachers who have
been specially trained by me. Owing to the short period of the training course it has been possible to give, and also to the fact that the method has not yet attained to its full development, I feel it would be premature to establish training schools which were not under my direct supervision, so that for the present no training course for the preparation of teachers except those held here in Rome, will be authorized by me
(
The New York Times, August 10, 1913 cited in Kramer, 1988, p. 181).According to Kramer (1988) many Americans did not think it appropriate that an educational method should be fabricated into a closed system with the leader of the hierarchy having the sole power to determine who could disseminate it. To American educators this was unseemly and it was felt that the Montessori movement was more suggestive of a church than of what a Montessori school should be.
According to Goffin and Wilson (2001) another reason for Montessori's rapid descent was her unwillingness to permit anyone other than herself to train Montessori teachers and her insistence that her method be embraced as a complete system. This was the situation in Europe, and was what Montessori herself expected, and demanded. This effectively blocked the Montessori movement from gaining entry within the early childhood profession.
Cohen (1974, p. 372) further argues that the failure of the Montessori movement was equally due to the mismanagement of Montessori's cause by her supporters in America as well as Montessori's own personality and squabbles within the Montessori movement. He states that the movement had the "ill luck to be led by a woman who was temperamentally unsuited for the effective use of friends or colleagues or coalitions" .
William Heard Kilpatrick, of Columbia University contributed further to the decline of Montessori in America. After visiting Italy in 1914 he published a devastating critique, The Montessori System Examined. Montessori's doctrine he
behind the present development of educational theory" . He outlined in his book an extensive and unfavourable comparison of Montessori's work with John Dewey. He noted, for example, that Dewey's .emphasis in the earliest schooling for children, while not retracting the need for reading and writing, is placed on activities "more vital to child-life which should at the same time lead toward the mastery of our complex social environment" . On the other hand Montessori's "much narrower conception of education" had led to her constant use of "logically simple units as if they were also the units of psychological experience" (Kilpatrick, 1914, pp. 63-64 cited in Faust, 1984).
Even with the failure of the movement in the United States, and to a lesser extent in the United Kingdom, there were still many people and institutions interested in Montessori. Montessori continued disseminating her method of education throughout Europe, India and other parts of the world until her death in 1952.
Chapter Summary
In this chapter Montessori's early life and the development of her early childhood curriculum model was presented. In particular this was examined in relation to Montessori's particular character and her personality. Montessori was a charismatic figure, with an extraordinarily vital and powerful personality and many who came in contact with her became her worshipful followers. Montessori's messianic zeal and fervor along with her conviction that her curriculum was complete as it was based on scientific results helps explain the endurance of her method. Furthermore, in spreading her method of education Montessori directly addressed the public rather than the more traditional and acceptable way through the usual professional settings. Her personality assisted in the rapid spread of her pedagogy internationally.
The rise of the printed media of communications during the early 1900s was mainly responsible for the rapid spread of Montessori's educational ideas on a