|
Montessori vs the school model… Listening To God With Children
Our task as catechists and as believers is a special one that resonates in our teaching and involves us as Christians and as educators. It is appropriate, therefore, to reflect on how Maria Montessori understood education. Montessori presented the above diagram at the International Course in Perugia, in 1950. It can serve as a guide and a help to us in considering the educational process. Observe the diagram and imagine that it represents the learning process. The top line is the line of personal development that goes from zero—indeed, it begins before birth—to age twenty-four. The bottom line represents education in the traditional school system, that is, education conceived as something the educator gives to the student. These two concepts of education do look to the same end: the actualization of the child's personality so that the individual can fulfill his or her own unique functions and roles in society. The top line clearly shows a regular progression. On the chronological life line are formed four triangles which represent the four phases of human development recognized by modern psychology: infancy, childhood, adolescence, and maturity. The bottom line shows an educational process that begins only at age 6, when society normally begins to take the child into account. On the bottom line notice that the vertex of the triangle widens and progressively increases. This represents the notion that the child's intelligence continually increases and, therefore, that the level of education given to the child must also continually increase. Also, notice that there is no continuity between the University segments of the triangle on the bottom line. On the contrary, a clear division marks the jump from one segment to the next, from elementary school to middle school to high school and to college. According to Montessori, the bottom line should correspond to the top line of life development. Yet, all of us who have been involved in the traditional school system know how readily the focus is placed more on programs than on observing and responding to individual development. This diagram reminds us that traditional education still has far to go in bringing the educational process into harmony with individual development. Although these two concepts of education are very different, they do have points of contact, and they can be brought into agreement. This cannot happen, however, unless certain basic preconceptions about education are completely abolished. Before going further with a discussion of the diagram, it would be useful to reflect on the word education and come to an understanding of its meaning. In an old Italian encyclopedia we read, “By this expression is generally understood the sum total of processes whereby any community or social group whatsoever transmits all that it possesses, in reality or in potential, for the purpose of assuring its own continuity of existence and development” (P. Fedele, UTET 1935). This definition indicates that all of life is an educational process,
from childhood to maturity. Today, more than ever, adults are called
to cultivate personality, character, and capabilities through constant
and necessary contact with other people who have different training,
cultural background, and habits. Adults must necessarily be involved
with diverse social, cultural, and religious institutions. How is
it then that, in common language, the word education usually only
refers to the action of the adult toward the growing child? In fact,
adults themselves are continually being submitted to an educational
process. We are all on the same level in being educated by life
itself and by each other (the concept of mutual education). It seems
to me that this reality should bring us, as adults, to an attitude
of greater attention and humility before others, including—and
especially—the child! When this discussion is framed in pedagogical terms, it can help to eliminate one of the many prejudices which form the base of disharmony between the two lines of education, as indicated by the diagram. As adults and as “educators” we are not the ones who give rise to the process of development of the human being. Life itself does this according to its universal laws, even if these laws are not yet fully understood. This reality should compel adults to want to know the child and to find the best possible way of assisting the child's self-education. Throughout the twentieth century, especially during the past thirty years, significant discoveries and advancements have influenced the educational processes. Theorists are less and less inclined to view education as depending on external causes and laws that act on and develop the human being on the basis of norms and goals imposed from the outside. Indeed, it was formerly presumed, with sincere conviction, that the process of a child's personality development was called forth by means of the education imparted by adults. Now, more and more, the value of freedom in the educational process is being recognized and affirmed. Educators today are more aware of and attentive to collaboration with those being educated. This means there is greater concern for nurturing the process of self-education. Still, there remain so many contradictions, delays, and unsuccessful programs. What the adult world has yet to fully confront—and what particularly interests us as catechist-educators—is that the true personality of the child is still buried under prejudices that keep adults from seeing the child clearly. Our vision of the child is still obstructed by habit and traditional educational practices. Adults must place themselves in right relationship with the child, in a spirit of humility and respect, in order to learn the child's true nature and the universal laws that guide and determine his or her development. In her book, The Formation of Man (Vasanta Press, India, 1971), Montessori wrote, “If we succeed only in proving the existence of these prejudices we will already have given a benefit of general import” (p. 22). Earlier in the book she wrote, “Children are for everyone empty beings for whom only play, sleep, and the pastime of fantasy tales are appropriate....A serious mental work in children so young seems a sacrilege....As far as instruction is concerned, we worry about keeping the child from mental efforts and precocious intellectual applications” (p.29). As to the child's physical development, adults tend to assume that young children are unable to control their movements. We manifest this misconception when we dress them, put food in their mouths, and so forth, thus hindering them from having those experiences that are essential in their quest for independence and self-confidence. In short, we adults are often so focused on our role as educator that we forget to respect the child. If we were to reflect on our relationship with the child, at home or in society, we could verify the existence of these prejudices. Furthermore, if we apply these observations to religious education, we find ourselves even more submerged in these prejudices. The Church has always recognized the child's dignity as a child of God from the moment of conception and invites the newborn child to the sacrament of baptism. The Orthodox Church goes so far as to offer newborns the Eucharist, thus viewing them as capable of participation in the most essential act of Christian life. But, in spite of this understanding of the child's dignity, the Church still tends to wait until the child is six years of age to begin formal religious education. And, even then, the focus is more on religious instruction than on religious formation. If we were to apply the diagram of “The Two Lines of Education” to the sphere of religious education, we would find an even greater contrast between the top and bottom lines. We would also find the same basic prejudices. People tend to think that serious theological concepts are incomprehensible to young children, even though experience has revealed that the link between God and the child is deeply rooted. Even from a very young age, the child has the capacity to see the invisible within the visible (or the transcendent within the perceivable). The young child has a capacity for living in profound rapport with God which expresses itself in prayer. It is precisely in the field of religious education that we should most readily pursue the full actualization of the child's potential and free ourselves from the traditional conception of education as something the adult gives to the child. It is precisely in this religious sphere that educational practices must be freed from external causality and must, instead, follow the “constructive rhythms of Life,” if we are convinced that life comes from God. From the beginning of her experiences in observing the child within a suitably prepared environment (1907), Maria Montessori discovered characteristics in the child that were completely new and previously unsuspected. This discovery of the child's true nature forms the basis of her work in education. What is often referred to as “the Montessori method” views education as “an aid to Life itself.” It is the aid we give to the child so that the child might develop his or her own potential. It is the aid we give to Life with a capital L. In Montessori terms, through the experience of Life itself, the child performs his or her tasks as a builder of the mature human being. The phrase that synthesizes the Montessori method of education is, “Help me to do it by myself.” Likewise, as catechists we attend to the silent plea of the child, “Help me to draw close to God by myself.” Gianna Gobbi / Rome, Italy Recommended related readings:
|
 |
Back
