The teachers’ conceptualisation of best practice in Montessori Education revealed a limited depth of understanding when analysed against the Montessori checklist. Although as presented in 4.1.3, their individual answers in general terms pinpointed elements of the Montessori philosophy such as child based, independence, free access, freedom of choice, teaching responsibility and support for children’s development, it seemed that the teachers appeared to find conceptualising best practice somewhat challenging. This scenario ties in with Whitescarver and Cossention’s (2008) summation that conceptualising best practice in Montessori education will usually pose a challenge because of the multi –faceted opinion on the perception which favours traditional Montessori practice against the liberal and progressive stance which is pragmatic in its practice. Thus, it appeared that the
teachers’ difficulty in conceptualising best practice may fit into the bracket of the liberal and pragmatic mind set as seemingly dictated by certain contextual factors. These identified factors are:
5.1.1 Teachers Unqualified in Montessori education
The fact that all the interviewed teachers from both nurseries except one were uncertified in Montessori education was revealing. Only the qualified teacher gave a conceptualisation of best practice that revealed some level of understanding of the Montessori philosophy of education. Unqualified teachers may not be able to convincingly articulate the
underpinning ethos of Montessori education given their admission that they come from other professional early years backgrounds. Subsequently, they may not be able to
adequately exemplify best practice as there appears to be a lack of in-depth understanding of this model of education. However, the finding as presented in 4.1.2 revealed the
preparedness and effort of these teachers to achieve certified Montessori teacher status, through formal and informal avenues. Further to this, the teachers’ commitment to professional development complements the stance of Nursery A, which underscored its support for staff attainment of appropriate professional qualification as indicated in 4.1.2.
Additionally, the commitment to the attainment of appropriate qualification by the respondents in Nursery A and B strongly resonates with the EPPE study by Sylva et al (2003) that the availability of duly trained and qualified staff in a preschool setting is a key element which impacts on the quality of the setting as well as on children’s performance. Equally highlighted by this study, is the need for staff to be knowledgeable in the requisite curriculum. From this observation, it may be summated that insufficient or lack of
knowledge in a requisite curriculum area will translate to difficulty in conceptualising best practice in that curriculum area. This appeared to be the case with the respondents in this research. Nonetheless, it is revealing that the staff interviewed indicated their employment periods within these nurseries as being within the range of 6months – 10years (see
appendix 20). Thus, while noting the teachers expressed commitment to professional enhancement, it may be possible to query their strong desire to achieve certified status, given the evidence of the number of years spent in the nurseries as teachers and the crucial premium placed on the preparation of a teacher in the Montessori method of education (Montessori 1965a; Standing 1957). Similarly, it is worth considering the availability of Montessori teacher training within the proximity of these nursery settings to encourage and facilitate accessibility to training centres. The importance of proximity and accessibility is vital because of the busy all year round operation of these nurseries.
5.1.2 The incorporation of the EYFS and Montessori principles
The combination of Montessori principles with the EYFS in both nurseries appeared to play an important role in the teacher’s conceptualisation of best practice because of the reality of operating daily under the demands of integrating Montessori principles into the EYFS framework with certain identified areas of conflict such as play, toys, role play, housekeeping, emphasis on combination of teacher led/child led activities and assessment/ documentation (Murray, 2008; DFES, 2007). The challenge posed by this blending
scenario appears to be consistent with Seldin’s (2010) stance that Montessori nursery schools are showing evidence of variations in practice and fewer adherences to strict Montessori principles because of the pressure and influence of other external factors such as culture and technology and as presented in 4.1.2, the EYFS.
Further to this, all the informants acknowledged the disparity between their expressed notion of best practice and what was actually the daily norm in the nursery classrooms and cited such issues as blending the EYFS and Montessori curriculum, lack of full
complement and range of Montessori materials and shortage of qualified staff as some of the challenges hindering best practice in their respective nurseries. Additionally, it is noteworthy that whilst the prospectuses of both nursery schools portrayed a representation of best practice that aligned with the criteria set out by the Montessori Education UK Limited, the reality in both nursery schools corroborated the disparity in some aspects of the nurseries’ practice as seen in a majority of the learning incidents presented in 4.2 – 4.5. It may be concluded that these disparities raise questions on the benchmarks for the
advertisement of these schools as Montessori education providers and thus in agreement with Manner (2007), I lament the common description of these schools as ‘Montessori’ without proper accreditation from governing bodies such as Montessori Education UK Limited which provide oversight functions to ensure standardization in practice and conformity to benchmarks for best practice. However, such disparity needs to be understood in the context in which both schools operate as the findings of this study
seemed to suggest that whilst there may be disparities as presented in 4.1.3, it appeared that these nurseries are constrained by the EYFS statutory provision to deliver an early years model which reflects the regulatory expectation of the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED). This is notwithstanding their advertised commitment of operating as
Montessori nurseries. Given that this appears to be the case in both nurseries, it is apparent that several areas of the nursery practice will expose this reality and be subsequently
interpreted as not upholding best practice. Interestingly, the notion of these nurseries as a mixture of EYFS/Montessori does not appear to give sufficient validation to Montessori practice. It can rather be viewed as truncating certain Montessori core ethos like the overarching emphasis on auto education, the role of the teachers as a guide and facilitator, who work to ensure transference of activity to the child and the primary aim of the
prepared environment being to make a child independent of the adult (Montessori 1965b; 1967; Standing 1957).
The above described scenario reflects the study by Daoust (2004) on Montessori preschool teachers in United States of America and their practice where four different sub groups of Montessori preschool teachers were identified. The traditional subgroup that adhered to Montessori practices adjudged as authentic, the contemporary subgroup that practiced elements of Montessori education adjudged as authentic but not to the extent of the traditional cluster and the blended and explorative subgroup that enacted elements of Montessori education in combination with other early years education models. This third subgroup of Montessori educators in USA who practiced the blended model by combining Montessori curriculum with other early years models appear to reflect the realistic practice of the Montessori educators in the two nursery schools involved in this study. Their expressed notion of best practice which embraced elements of the Montessori ethos
differed significantly with their daily practice in the nursery, revealing a close resemblance to the practice of educators delivering a blended Montessori practice (Daoust 2004).
The foregone findings seem to suggest that one implication of conceptualising best practice in Montessori education when delivered in a blended context as identified in Nursery A and B is that it may not evidence all the distinctive components that mark out best practice in conventional Montessori practice (Dorer 2007; Schmidt & Schmidt 2009).