EDUCATIONFORUM THE EARLY Y EARS Evaluating Montessori Education Angeline Lillard1* and Nicole Else-Quest2 An analysis of students’ academic and social scores compares a Montessori school with other elementary school education programs. ontessori education is a 100-year- this potential source of bias, because parents did not contribute significantly to any of the old method of schooling that was are the dominant influence on child out- differences reported here. Children at the Mfirst used with impoverished pre- comes (5). Montessori school were drawn from all six school children in Rome. The program con- classrooms at the primary level and all four at tinues to grow in popularity. Estimates indi- Recruitment the upper elementary level. The control chil- cate that more than 5000 schools in the We contacted parents of children who had dren were at non-Montessori schools: 27 pub- United States—including 300 public schools entered the Montessori school lottery in lic inner city schools (40 children) and 12 and some high schools—use the Montessori 1997 and 2003 and invited them to be in the suburban public, private/voucher, or charter program. Montessori education is character- study. All families were offered $100 for schools (13 children). Many of the public ized by multi-age classrooms, a special set of participation. schools had enacted special programs, such educational materials, student-chosen work Because the lottery, which was con- as gifted and talented curricula, language in long time blocks, collaboration, the ducted by the school district, was random, immersion, arts, and discovery learning. absence of grades and tests, and individual the Montessori and control groups should Children in both groups were tested for and small group instruction in both academic contain similar children. Ninety percent of cognitive/academic and social/behavioral and social skills (1). The effectiveness of consenting parents filled out a demographic skills that were selected for importance in some of these elements is supported by survey. Parents from the Montessori and life, not to examine specific expected effects research on human learning (2). control groups had similar average incomes of Montessori education. Our results re- We evaluated the social and academic ($20,000 to $50,000 per year) at each stu- vealed significant advantages for the Mon- impact of Montessori education. Children dent age level. This addressed a concern tessori group over the control group for both were studied near the end of the two most with a retrospective lottery loser design that age groups. widely implemented levels of Montessori the final samples might be different for rea- education: primary (3- to 6-year-olds) and sons other than the treatment. Another vari- Results: 5-Year-Olds elementary (6- to 12-year-olds). The Mon- able, ethnicity, was not surveyed because Cognitive/Academic Measures. Seven scales tessori school we studied [located in Mil- parent income contributes more to child out- were administered from the Woodcock-John- waukee, Wisconsin (3)], which served comes than does ethnicity (6). We were also son (WJ III) Test Battery (7). Significant dif- mainly urban minority children, was in its concerned that requesting ethnicity data ferences favoring Montessori 5-year-olds were ninth year of operation and was recognized would reduce participation in this racially found on three WJ tests measuring academic by the U.S. branch of the Association divided city. skills related to school readiness: Letter-Word Montessori Internationale (AMI/USA) for Overall, 53 control and 59 Montessori stu- Identification, Word Attack (phonological de- its good implementation of Montessori dents were studied (table S1). The 5-year-old coding ability), and Applied Problems (math principles (4). group included 25 control and 30 Montessori skills) (see chart, left). No difference was Because it was not feasible to randomly children, and the 12-year-old group included expected or found on the Picture Vocabulary assign children to experimental and control 28 control and 29 Montessori children. test (basic vocabulary) because vocabulary is educational groups, we designed our study Gender balance was imperfect, but gender highly related to family background variables around the school lottery already in place. (8). Two WJ tests of basic thinking skills— 0.4 Both the experimental and the control group Spatial Reasoning and Concept Formation— had entered the Montessori school lottery; also showed no difference. those who were accepted were assigned to 0.2 Five-year-olds were also tested on execu- the experimental (Montessori) group, and tive function, thought to be important to suc- score those who were not accepted were assigned z 0 cess in school. On one such test, children to the control (other education systems) were asked to sort cards by one rule, switch Mean group. This strategy addressed the concern –0.2 to a new rule, and (if they did well) then that parents who seek to enroll their child in switch to a compound rule. Montessori chil- a Montessori school are different from par- –0.4 dren performed significantly better on this ents who do not. It is crucial to control for Montessori Control test. A test of children’s ability to delay grat- WJ letter-word False belief (social cognition) ification (a treat) did not indicate statisti- WJ word attack Refers to justice cally significant differences. 1Department of Psychology, University of Virginia P.O. WJ applied math Positive shared play Box 400400, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA. 2Department Card sort (executive function) Ambiguous rough play Social/Behavioral Measures. Children were of Psychology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI Results for 5-year-olds. Montessori students ach- given five stories about social problems, such 53202, USA. ieved higher scores [converted to average z scores as another child hoarding a swing, and were *Author for correspondence. E-mail: [email protected] (18)] for both academic and behavioral tests. asked how they would solve each problem (9). www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 313 29 SEPTEMBER 2006 1893 Published by AAAS EDUCATIONFORUM Montessori children were significantly more tive assertive response (for example, ver- social effects, which are generally dominated likely (43% versus 18% of responses) to use a bally expressing one’s hurt feelings to the by the home environment (17). higher level of reasoning by referring to justice host). On a questionnaire regarding their Future research could improve on the or fairness to convince the other child to relin- feelings about school, Montessori children research design here by following lottery par- quish the object. Observations at the play- indicated having a greater sense of commu- ticipants prospectively and by tracking those ground during recess indicated Montessori nity, responding more positively to items who drop out and examining their reasons. It children were significantly more likely to be such as, “Students in my class really care would be useful to replicate these findings in involved in positive shared peer play and sig- about each other” and “Students in this class different Montessori schools, which can vary nificantly less likely to be involved in rough treat each other with respect.” widely. The school involved here was affili- play that was ambiguous in intent (such as ated with AMI/USA, which has a traditional wrestling without smiling). Benefits of Montessori Education and relatively strict implementation. It would The False Belief task was administered to On several dimensions, children at a public also be useful to know whether certain com- examine children’s understanding of the inner city Montessori school had superior ponents of Montessori (e.g., the materials or mind (10). Recognition that people repre- outcomes relative to a sample of Montessori the opportunities for collaborative work) are sent the world in subjective as well as objec- applicants who, because of a random lottery, associated with particular outcomes. tive ways is a landmark achievement in attended other schools. By the end of kinder- Montessori education has a fundamen- social cognition (11). Social negotiation and garten, the Montessori children performed tally different structure from traditional edu- discussion about mental states leads to this better on standardized tests of reading and cation. At least when strictly implemented, advance in children (12). Whereas 80% math, engaged in more positive interaction on Montessori education fosters social and aca- (significantly more than chance) of the the playground, and showed more advanced demic skills that are equal or superior to those Montessori 5-year-olds passed, the control social cognition and executive control. They fostered by a pool of other types of schools. children were at chance, with 50% passing. also showed more concern for fairness and justice. At the end of elementary school, References and Notes Results: 12-Year-Olds Montessori children wrote more creative 1. M. Montessori, The Montessori Method (Schocken, New York, 1964). Cognitive/Academic Measures. Twelve-year- essays with more complex sentence struc- 2. A. S. Lillard, Montessori: The Science Behind the Genius olds were given 5 minutes to complete a story tures, selected more positive responses to (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 2005). beginning “____ had the best/worst day at social dilemmas, and reported feeling more 3. Milwaukee Public Schools school.” The Montessori students’ essays were of a sense of community at their school. (http://mpsportal.milwaukee.k12.wi.us/portal/server.pt). 4. Association Montessori Internationale (www.montessori- rated as significantly more creative and as These findings were obtained with a lottery ami.org/). using significantly more sophisticated sentence loser design that provides control for parental 5. NICHD Early Child-Care Research Network, Harvard Ed. structures (see chart, below). Control and influence. Normally parental influence (both Rev. 74, 1 (2004). 6. G. J. Duncan, W. J. Yeung, J. Brooks-Gunn, J. R. Smith, Montessori essays were similar in spelling, genetic and environmental) dominates over Am. Soc. Rev. 63, 406 (1998).