Although Maria Montessori (1870–1952) and Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925) were historical contemporaries and undeniable giants in the field of early childhood education (ECE).There is no reliable prima facie evidence that they ever met in person. It is well documented they were strongly aware of each other’s work and despite having both been in Vienna for a period in 1922, rumours of a face-to-face meeting have never been substantiated. Both were fearless pioneers who forged paths of alternative perceptions and understanding of ECE practice that still have a deep resonance with educators today. For that we should be truly grateful.
It is even more remarkable when considering their historical period and the dominant educational orthodoxies of the time, that they remain, to my knowledge, the only individual theorists who have accredited school movements named after them that continue reflecting their principles and approaches to this day (1).
A meeting between them would have been a fascinating encounter. Indeed, it is a testament to their thinking and visionary insight that over a 100 years ago their unique, and contradictory perceptions still form the basis of today’s discussion on how children - and ECE should be viewed. This discussion remains an important one and, as ever, reflects values and beliefs that influence both perception of childhood, learning and the purpose of education. Inevitably these shape awareness, policy and practice and the aspirational trajectories that we have for all children.
Steiner was a mystic who developed the approach of anthroposophy. He viewed the child as a predominantly spiritual being whose development was guided by the soul and the spirit rather than biology. He asserted their pre-existing spiritual essence eventually graduates to the physical body which he viewed as a sacred process. Education – in ECE at least – was not the acquisition and application of knowledge but instead resolving the quest for spiritual harmony and self-awareness. Critically, he saw the Birth to 7 phase as one in which the child existed in an innate state of ‘subconscious reverie’ that should not be disturbed and therefore the focus should be on self-exploration, imitation, understanding rhythms, and physical movement.
Specific and formal academic content is delayed until after this recognised Kindergarten phase. The role of the adult, therefore reflected these beliefs. Teachers would need to aspire to be ‘a person worthy of emulation’ and guide by example, allowing the spiritual process to develop unhindered rather than directly instruct the child.
Montessori’s work was drawn from scientific observation of children, and she saw the child as an innately intelligent and self-constructing being. She believed that all children had a biological and evolutionary drive that propelled them towards growth, development, progress and learning and critically acknowledged the need to understand and respect this natural development. She focussed on the nature and importance of a child’s experiences as combining with their biological development to enable them to self-construct their knowledge, understanding and identity. Critically – and uniquely at the time – she saw the child as an ‘active learner’ rather than a passive recipient or tabula rasa (blank slate) and this ability should be recognised and supported. She believed that allowing children autonomy in their choices and learning supported their concentration, independence, self-discipline and confidence. She identified ‘sensitive periods’ of development where a child develops aspects in a self-driven ‘effortless’ way.In this context the role of the teacher was to observe, support and provide the opportunities and materials for learning and development. She summed this up in the following quote “This then is the first duty of an educator: to stir up life but leave it free to develop.” (2)
While there are clear parallels in the resulting approach, the starting point and core beliefs are fundamentally different. Equally, the aspiration for children, the intended ‘outcomes’ and purpose of education could be viewed as similar but the pathways and journey towards it follows very distinct and separate means.
We retain as an ECE profession a recognisable spectrum of beliefs about the child – and childhood – that are typified by those of Steiner and Montessori. The growth in the understanding of neuroscience has inevitably influenced our knowledge, even where this remarkably corroborates historical theories. In doing this we draw from different values, beliefs and personal experiences and reflections. It would be too crude to describe this as a dichotomy between the spiritual and scientific, but they reflect the outlying parameters of belief. However, beneath is the view we develop of the nature of the child and shapes the rationale and drivers for our practice and decisions.
During a recent conference I ran a workshop that was provocatively entitled ‘The Seriousness of Play… and how we view the child within it’. During this I explored collected words that reflect a particular view or ‘lens’ through which we view the child.For example, a ‘deficit’ model of a child would generate words like inadequate, undeveloped ignorant and needy. A ‘mystical’ model (that might derive from Steiner’s view) would use words like sacred, magical, knowing, otherworldly and transcendent. A purely ‘scientific’ view might describe this as quantifiable, biological, universal and adaptive. Finally, a socio-cultural view (that might align more with Montessori) would use words like co-constructed, relational, dialogical, experiential and participatory.
During the workshop we considered our view of the child – and how eclectic this will inevitably be – and then watched some footage of children engaged in self-initiated autonomous activity. The subsequent discussions clearly identified the presence of the ‘starting point’ for observation. It also identified that what we saw, how we saw it and what it meant to us as educators demonstrated the significance of this awareness.
Understanding the different ‘starting points’ for how we view the child is imperative in ensuring that our practice and the decisions we make reflect this and are therefore authentic and impactful. Equally, recognising the diversity of ‘starting points’ that exists with the ECE profession is also vital in shaping a consensus in how we facilitate and provide for our shared aspirations for all children.
- Further information: Montessori Schools https://montessorieducationuk.org/
- The Discovery of the Child by Maria Montessori (Ch. 8) 1948.
Steiner Waldorf Schools https://waldorfeducation.uk/
