Sam Carter/Amanda Tapping Discussion/Appreciation

[Tracy Jane]

I'd not be surprised if Olivia will be attending a Montessori school. And parents are almost always very involved in their school's activities. A friend of mine volunteered for years at her daughter's Montessori school even after the child had gone on to a different school. It is a different kind of teaching than most public schools.

donamac

Of course, it's important to remember that although Montessori is often linked with a certain "group" of schools, it's more a pedagogical method. But yes, it is a very different type of education.

Spoiler:

My infant school (that is reception class through to year 2) conducted an experiment where one class had a very structured method of learning, specifically didactic teaching and more "traditional" methods, whereas the other class (my class) was given resources and allowed to play and explore with the teacher in more of an "observing" role (a more - though not pure - Montessori approach).

At the time, they didn't see much of a difference. They noted (and I found this out later, when I went back to the school for work experience in preparation for my teacher training) that those who were more traditionally taught did better in an exam scenario, because they had been taught what they needed for the tests, but those with a more "free range" approach (I hesitate to use the word Montessori, because although we may have used many of the techniques, such as sandpaper letters and so on, it wasn't a "purist" approach) had a broader range of knowledge and did better on those tests where it wasn't a specific syllabus. The difference between force fed knowledge and that acquired through natural inquisitiveness.

It's more interesting, however, to look at how the two classes have diverged as we've got older. If these early years of education really are formative for the rest of our lives, we should be able to see patterns.

And you do, though I'm not really sure what those patterns are. I'm still in touch with 15 of my class and 15 of the other class (there were 30 in a class, with 15 in year 1 and 15 in year 2, so I'm essentially in touch with all my peers).

In my class there are now 6 teachers, 3 professional dancers, 3 actors (there were four, but is now doing his teacher training), 1 student (see previous), 1 director and 1 sports physiotherapist. I should, at this point, note that I come from a town with a fairly large television studio and most of us were involved in professional acting or dancing on stage or screen from a young age.

In the other class there are 2 doctors, 2 biochemists, 1 police officer, 1 dancer, 4 people in office jobs (not really sure what, actually... they just said they're office assistants), 2 nurses and I'm missing the last couple... dammit!

Anyway, the Montessori approach boasts creativity and promotes the child's natural inquisitiveness. Well, looking at the career paths of my peers, it does seem to look that way. Though, there seem to be just as many success stories in the second class. And really, can we accredit the creativity to the free range approach or is it more a case of us being influenced by the area we lived in?

My best friend at school was one of the girls in the "other" class. We came from the same sort of socia background, same siblings, same sort of vested interest from parents. As children we both worked on the same shows at the local studio. We were discussing our education experiences a few months ago.

She said she wished she could have picked and chosen the things she looked at. She thinks that allowing herself to take the time and explore would have given her more confidence and helped her to think around things a bit more. She says she's always found that those people in my class found it easier to write essays and do problems they don't know the answers to, because they have that creativity there.... they've been taught to b/s from an early age (her words not mine!).

I on the other hand, look back and feel that I absolutely adored my time in infant school. I was a bookworm and read everything in the library and they used to get me in extra books. But for all the positives there, it also meant that other areas of my education got neglected. So although I've aways been competent in maths, it has been a struggle. And I also lack discipline. I always flit between things. Now whether that's just my natural personality or the product of this style of education, I don't know, but I will say that at least 4 of the others in my class (those that I talk to on a regular basis) are the same way inclined.

Overall though, I think that sort of free-range approach was positive. I was allowed to learn because learning interested me, and not because I had to learn what I was being told. If I hadn't felt that way since I was young, I would never have opted to take French lessons on a Saturday morning instead of horse riding. Even now, I love to learn and research. It makes life interesting.

Anyway, I just had a huge OT babbling session, and I doubt any of it is really that useful or interesting to anyone. But personally, I'm a big supporter of montessori based pedagogy in early education, provided there are still measures in place to balance the curriculum.

*nods*

[NZNeep]

My Aussie cousins are Montessori kids. One of them was a maths olympics competitor and is now studying hard out discrete maths. The younger one is studying to be a doctor... she flew to Italy to present a paper in her first year of Uni. They are both uber, uber smart.

[Tracy Jane]

My Aussie cousins are Montessori kids. One of them was a maths olympics competitor and is now studying hard out discrete maths. The younger one is studying to be a doctor... she flew to Italy to present a paper in her first year of Uni. They are both uber, uber smart.

Yeah, I think it makes a difference if you go to a specialist school with teachers who are trained in the method. And if it's more of a prolonged exposure. I know a girl who went to a school that practised the Montessori approach from year 1 through to year 6 (though it was a state school and not actuay one of the Montessori foundation schools) and she's ubersmart as well. She's currently working as a musician and plays in this amazing symphony orchestra, but she has a masters degree in physics as well.

I think if it had been more than just a "school playing about for a couple of years", we'd have seen more of a difference. Maybe.

It's really hard to tell what is due to methodology and what is to do with the children and what is to do with the support the chidren get from the parents.

One thing I do think though, is that those children who have access to a more free range / montessori approach education tend to enjoy their education more. And a child who enjoys learning, learns more and, therefore, achieves more. So yes, theoretically the approach should work. And it does appear to.

[Chelle DB]

Just putting in my five cents...if that's ok...and i promise to be quick...

Spoiler:

do you think it's fair to say that a lot of it depends on the child him/herself? I mean I know plenty of folks who got that private schooling and ended up doing the same things as me...so my thinking is that if the child has the potential to learn and excel, then they would do well in either institution. From my perspective...speaking strictly from my own experience...I don't think any special educational institution would have helped me...I was never motivated and I still find it hard to learn things now even when motivated.
Don't get me wrong...I'm sure these schools are wonderful and have some great qualities.
A friend of ours, who I should mention is quite intelligent...I mean like Sam Carter intelligent...went back to uni for further studies a few years ago. The uni found that privately educated students fared worse than the public educated students...it had something to do with preparation for the higher education system and dealing with peers. I just think its fair to say...and please feel free to disagree...that in the end, it depends on each individual child...some do better and some don't...I think I take it personal when people say that the private way is better and kids are smarter.

I tried to be quick.
So...what education do you think Sam received?? Private or general/public? Extra tutoring??
Do you think it would have made a difference to her life if she had received private education vs public...and why and how?
That's it for me for today...night all...have a lovely weekend!
(((Samandans)))

[donamac]

Of course, it's important to remember that although Montessori is often linked with a certain "group" of schools, it's more a pedagogical method. But yes, it is a very different type of education.

Spoiler:

My infant school (that is reception class through to year 2) conducted an experiment where one class had a very structured method of learning, specifically didactic teaching and more "traditional" methods, whereas the other class (my class) was given resources and allowed to play and explore with the teacher in more of an "observing" role (a more - though not pure - Montessori approach).

At the time, they didn't see much of a difference. They noted (and I found this out later, when I went back to the school for work experience in preparation for my teacher training) that those who were more traditionally taught did better in an exam scenario, because they had been taught what they needed for the tests, but those with a more "free range" approach (I hesitate to use the word Montessori, because although we may have used many of the techniques, such as sandpaper letters and so on, it wasn't a "purist" approach) had a broader range of knowledge and did better on those tests where it wasn't a specific syllabus. The difference between force fed knowledge and that acquired through natural inquisitiveness.

It's more interesting, however, to look at how the two classes have diverged as we've got older. If these early years of education really are formative for the rest of our lives, we should be able to see patterns.

And you do, though I'm not really sure what those patterns are. I'm still in touch with 15 of my class and 15 of the other class (there were 30 in a class, with 15 in year 1 and 15 in year 2, so I'm essentially in touch with all my peers).

In my class there are now 6 teachers, 3 professional dancers, 3 actors (there were four, but is now doing his teacher training), 1 student (see previous), 1 director and 1 sports physiotherapist. I should, at this point, note that I come from a town with a fairly large television studio and most of us were involved in professional acting or dancing on stage or screen from a young age.

In the other class there are 2 doctors, 2 biochemists, 1 police officer, 1 dancer, 4 people in office jobs (not really sure what, actually... they just said they're office assistants), 2 nurses and I'm missing the last couple... dammit!

Anyway, the Montessori approach boasts creativity and promotes the child's natural inquisitiveness. Well, looking at the career paths of my peers, it does seem to look that way. Though, there seem to be just as many success stories in the second class. And really, can we accredit the creativity to the free range approach or is it more a case of us being influenced by the area we lived in?

My best friend at school was one of the girls in the "other" class. We came from the same sort of socia background, same siblings, same sort of vested interest from parents. As children we both worked on the same shows at the local studio. We were discussing our education experiences a few months ago.

She said she wished she could have picked and chosen the things she looked at. She thinks that allowing herself to take the time and explore would have given her more confidence and helped her to think around things a bit more. She says she's always found that those people in my class found it easier to write essays and do problems they don't know the answers to, because they have that creativity there.... they've been taught to b/s from an early age (her words not mine!).

I on the other hand, look back and feel that I absolutely adored my time in infant school. I was a bookworm and read everything in the library and they used to get me in extra books. But for all the positives there, it also meant that other areas of my education got neglected. So although I've aways been competent in maths, it has been a struggle. And I also lack discipline. I always flit between things. Now whether that's just my natural personality or the product of this style of education, I don't know, but I will say that at least 4 of the others in my class (those that I talk to on a regular basis) are the same way inclined.

Overall though, I think that sort of free-range approach was positive. I was allowed to learn because learning interested me, and not because I had to learn what I was being told. If I hadn't felt that way since I was young, I would never have opted to take French lessons on a Saturday morning instead of horse riding. Even now, I love to learn and research. It makes life interesting.

Anyway, I just had a huge OT babbling session, and I doubt any of it is really that useful or interesting to anyone. But personally, I'm a big supporter of montessori based pedagogy in early education, provided there are still measures in place to balance the curriculum.

*nods*

It was very interesting to me OT or not. I for one would have done better in that milieu as a very young child. I was always reprimanded for being a dreamer and started out quite creative. I really believe I as a graphic artist for 50 years would have had a more creative career had I not been in the traditional disciplined school of the 1940s. When I went to my 50th high school reunion I found a distinct lack of people in "the arts" or even teaching degrees. Mostly engineering and retail, medical and business degrees.

donamac (I wonder if Amanda was a Montessori "graduate" as she is so creative.)

[Skydiver]

for me, i went to public schools k-3, private schools 4-9, hten back to public for high school

it was hard socially because i not only changed schools so lost all my friends and was the outsider at the catholic school because i wasn't catholic (the teachers there, one of them anyway, even taught that protestants were 'protest-ants')

but educationally?

when i went back to public school for the firsts year i was bored out of my skull because i had already learned some of what they were teaching. I was ahead of them, so i can say my education in the catholic school system was better than in the public school system

but i do also look at my neice and how we teach her. granted she's only two, but we chat and talk. what color is this, what does that animal say, who is that, say this word....etc

we do interactive teaching. and, while she's still doing the 24 month 'baby talk', she speaks in sentences. 'grandma come play' 'santa clause is coming to town' 'oliver play yesterday'

[EvenstarSRV]

when i went back to public school for the firsts year i was bored out of my skull because i had already learned some of what they were teaching. I was ahead of them, so i can say my education in the catholic school system was better than in the public school system

Yeah, I had a few friends who were the same way when they went from private schools to public high schools, they were at least a grade level ahead of their classmates especially in math.

I went to public high school K-12, and I think the main reason I wasn't bored silly for most of it was because I was lucky enough to go to schools with a lot of good gifted and talent or advanced placement courses. Though, I'm still in awe of my cousins in India, they were doing geometry and pre-calculus at the same grade my siblings and I were just starting algebra.

Whoa, I just noticed that this thread has almost reached 5000 pages and 100,000 posts. That's crazy cool!

[NZNeep]

Oh, I forgot the point I was making about my uber smart Montessori cousins. The one training to be a doctor and presenting papers in Italy is also a painter. The cousin doing abstract maths stuff is also a circus performer... unicycles, trapeze, tumbling, doing a handstand balanced on her boyfriends knees, that sort of thing. Like me, she hasn't picked up her bagpipes for a while though.

[Tracy Jane]

Oh, I forgot the point I was making about my uber smart Montessori cousins. The one training to be a doctor and presenting papers in Italy is also a painter. The cousin doing abstract maths stuff is also a circus performer... unicycles, trapeze, tumbling, doing a handstand balanced on her boyfriends knees, that sort of thing. Like me, she hasn't picked up her bagpipes for a while though.

Yeah... even in the system I went through that I was describing, the teachers all have some sort of mildly creative thing going on (though I don't do a lot of stage stuff, I play the clarinet for the town band, and the others play in orchestras or paint or do something awesome and creative) and the dancers and actors all have quite an academic background as well. Most of them (apart from Thom who was in Mamma Mia and Vanessa who came 6th in Miss England) have degrees in science/maths based subjects.

[antoa]

I think that Sam, being a part of a military family, she was in the public school system. I couldn't see them spending the money on tuition when her father could be transferred at any time.

As for me, I went through the public school system and come out just fine. I was 2 classes ahead in math from the others in my grade. They actually didn't have a math class for me my senior year because I took Calculus my junior year (and received the 3rd highest grade in it - the other 2 juniors were higher than me). I could have opted to take a college course, but since I was in the theatre program with rehearsals after school, the scheduling didn't work out. I ended up taking AP Physics so my math wouldn't get rusty.

In addition to theatre, I also took art class and was in choir and on speech team and also took dance class outside of school, so I think I got a well rounded education that included the creative as well as the analytical. All without my parents having to pay tuition.

Having said that, I know not all public school systems are created equal.

[donamac]

I think that Sam, being a part of a military family, she was in the public school system. I couldn't see them spending the money on tuition when her father could be transferred at any time.

As for me, I went through the public school system and come out just fine. I was 2 classes ahead in math from the others in my grade. They actually didn't have a math class for me my senior year because I took Calculus my junior year (and received the 3rd highest grade in it - the other 2 juniors were higher than me). I could have opted to take a college course, but since I was in the theatre program with rehearsals after school, the scheduling didn't work out. I ended up taking AP Physics so my math wouldn't get rusty.

In addition to theatre, I also took art class and was in choir and on speech team and also took dance class outside of school, so I think I got a well rounded education that included the creative as well as the analytical. All without my parents having to pay tuition.

Having said that, I know not all public school systems are created equal.

Wow! I wish our high school offered all that to me--but I was a "farm kid" and the regional HS considered us not as well educated and refused to let me take both art classes and "glee club"--I chose music as I had aspired to be a singer at that point. They also required home economics in spite of I had been cooking for my family since I was 10 and I sewed all my own clothes already. I wanted to take wood shop--no girls allowed!

Just be glad you weren't born as soon as I was

donamac

[NZNeep]

Wow! I wish our high school offered all that to me--but I was a "farm kid" and the regional HS considered us not as well educated and refused to let me take both art classes and "glee club"--I chose music as I had aspired to be a singer at that point. They also required home economics in spite of I had been cooking for my family since I was 10 and I sewed all my own clothes already. I wanted to take wood shop--no girls allowed!

Just be glad you weren't born as soon as I was

donamac

Oh, we know we're lucky. I'm a bit like Antoa in the sense that I'm well rounded except that by my final year I dropped art and music so I could take every science and maths subject I could. I was still dancing and taking music outside school though. I was actually the only girl in my 4th form hard materials class (wood work and metal work). My work actually got destroyed before it was finished because some of the guys couldn't stand the care I took in design and my attention to detail. Because of that I didn't manage to finish a single project.

All that doesn't mean I have the motivation to finish anything though I have a year of a physics and calculus degree done, and a year of an arts degree (political science and cultural anthropology) but I couldn't decide what I wanted to do and I was just wasting my money fluffing around (money that could have been going into my AT4 account ). So I took some time off to work full time and work out what I wanted to do. If I get this stupid application essay done in time to apply and get accepted, I'm starting a nursing degree at the end of Feb. I'm thinking that it will be a better balance of human and science for me, even if I end up moving toward the science end with something like radiology.

[Conn8d]

Neat hearing everybodys education stories!

As for me, I went to public schools K-12. In Nevada the public school schools and education in general (especially lately) are not the greatest. I was in a lot of advanced and honors and AP type classes throughout my schooling and often had to challenge myself by doing independent research.

My first and second schools (elementary and middle) were just regular zoned schools near my house, but for High School I had the chance to attend a special magnet school for the arts and international studies. It is still a public school, but it required a test and audition to enter and is generally regarded as the best "public" high school in town (we won the blue ribbon high school award and grammy's and stuff). One reason the school was so much better is that it had a lot of non-government funding to maintain itself (we world premiered a lot of HS edition musicals and plays), so we got to have really neat speakers and trips and stuff.
It really allowed me to grow academically and musically and is a huge part of the reason I am in the college I attend (I can afford to go because I have a merit scholarship for my grades and a small music scholarship for my horn).

Long story short, I think that a child who has the desire to succeed can in public schools, but only with a lot of drive and family support. On the other hand, I have seen how much more a public school can do if it has adequate funding and resources. I hope that this is something that changes because I know that people get lost in systems and fail to realize their true potential, because they get bored or don't get the help they need.

And as for on topic: I do think that Sam went to public schools, and ended up having to take a lot of her education into her own hands. I bet she took AP courses and classes at college in High School. This is why I think she really values education. I can imagine her helping Cassie find the right college and helping her settle in and stuff and I would imagine that if she had a kid she'd make sure they got an education too. I feel that education and the aquisition of knowledge is such an integral part of Sam.

[morjana]

Neat hearing everybodys education stories!

As for me, I went to public schools K-12. In Nevada the public school schools and education in general (especially lately) are not the greatest. I was in a lot of advanced and honors and AP type classes throughout my schooling and often had to challenge myself by doing independent research.

I started school in South Dakota - K through 4th grade. Of course, this was WAY back in the '50's. Public schools were in a better financial position back then.

I had had learned how to read when I was 3 years old, and was reading at a 5th grade level when I hit 1st grade (in kindergarten, I never wanted to go outside and play, I was always reading books) -- I was sent up to the 5th grade reading classes in 1st grade, and then in 2nd grade forward, I was always given special assignments.

I moved just at the beginning of 5th to San Francisco, CA -- and found out that CA was about 2-3 years BEHIND S. Dak. My teacher was a champ though -- she assigned me extra reading for special projects, and then also conned me into being her "class assistant" with the other students. I moved back to S. Dak to finish the last half of 5th grade (my mother's 3rd marriage didn't work out) and spent that time playing catch up.

We moved again at the beginning of 6th grade to a different school in the same city, and I had my first male teacher, Mr. John Bauer. He was pretty cool. I had been reading science fiction for about three years then, and he was also an avid scifi reader. We used to have discussions at lunch time about the books we had read, and he was always recommending new authors for me try out.

I attended 7 & 8 grades at the Jr High School in S. Dak., and moved back to CA (Pleasant Hill this time with my mom and her 5th husband) and finished High School there. I was placed in the AP classes my second semester and stayed in them until I graduated. I had a bad habit of reading the text books cover to cover when I first got them and asking the teachers for a special assignments.

One thing I should point out is that I also went to summer school every year --even the year I graduated. I wanted to take a radio class at a neighboring high school, but it was always full, and finally was allowed to take the class for summer school after I graduated. I also took a full load -- 8 classes - my senior year. According to school guidelines the most credits you could accrue was 340, I graduated with 420. I was also taking classes at the Junior College directly across the street from my high school.

I then moved to Sacramento and attended CSUS. I've since returned school (both CSUS and Sac City College) several times since getting my degree for classes I was interested in, and took Adult Ed classes to learn computer software in the early 80's. I also went back to school full time in '97 to learn how to become a web master (and got a job working at a start up internet company just as I graduated).

Now that I'm retired, I'm taking classes at the Senior Citizen Center across the street from my apt. complex, and I volunteer teaching English as a Second Language there as well.

I think I was very fortunate to have had a lot of great teachers, especially as a young child.

For on topic: I too think Sam went to public schools, specifically because her father was in Air Force. I think that they would have moved too much for a private school education. I see Sam doing very well in math and science classes and probably did well in English and History as well. Her problem would be to be kept motivated, but I think Sam did some of the same things I did -- she kept challenging herself.

[Tittamiire]

Ooh Education! Ramble coming up...

Spoiler:

I nearly went to a private montessori school right from the start, but my parents worked out the finances and decided that they'd be pushing it financially and they wouldn't be able to pay for all the extras of childhood if they went with that. So I went to a state nursery, then a state church school for primary school, bog standard comprehensive down the road for secondary, the local 16 to 18 college after that and then onto Uni.

I was a very bright kid, we all were (my Dad has affectionate horror stories of chasing us round the house crying "wait...you're not supposed to be walking yet...stop running!") However, when I entered primary school I wasn't ready to learn to read and write. I was great at other stuff, but I couldn't read or write. However there isn't the flexibility within a regular classroom set up to allow for that kind of difference in personal development and some of my strongest memories of Reception are of standing at my teachers desk with Ginn Level One, Book 1 in front of her and me not being able to read it and my teacher desperately trying to get me to. Once I got it, I got it, but it was in my own time and I can't help feeling that both of our energies would have been better spent with me learning about something else for a bit and then coming back to reading and writing. I suspect I'd have been a happier five year old learning in a different way. My favourite bits of primary school were the investigative learning sections of our Science and Maths books, which you only got onto if you'd finished the first sections on each topic.

I also spent a lot of time all the way through school bored out of my skull (which I know is normal). It was better once we were streamed by ability, but my school hadn't yet cottoned onto the idea of gifted and talented programs (all my younger brothers were in them when they came through) so there was little opportunity within the school I was in to go beyond the syllabus, which I wish had been there. As long as you were comfortably working at an A then everyone seemed happy to let you coast along. Which is understandable when your success is determined by exams grades and you've got classes of 35 to teach. However, I did learn to multi-task. I played games and read in many lessons while I did my work. My parents worked hard to provide more outside of school, I learned piano and flute and did a million different sports. Plus they've both got maths degrees.

I really enjoyed college though. I loved getting out of school and specialising in just 4 subjects for A level. It wasn't that I didn't enjoy studying a breadth of subjects, but I loved the depth that A levels allowed. Plus....classes of only 15-20 was blissful.

One thing that I really wish school had taught me though was how to write an effective essay. I'm not sure when I was supposed to have learnt it, but I skipped from 'you don't need to know this yet' to 'you should know how to do it'.