Discerning Critical Hope: The work of Montessori leaders in underserved areas of England
Montessori education originated in San Lorenzo, a low-income suburb of Rome, in 1907. Dr Maria Montessori had been approached by the developers of a social housing project, to develop a ‘casa dei bambini’ for fifty children who were left alone whilst their parents worked. Recalling the opening of the children’s house, she describes how ‘this work we were undertaking would prove to be very important and that some day people would come from all parts to see it.’ (AMI 2021)
In the intervening years, this distinctive pedagogy has moved beyond its original context and has extended its impact and reach across the globe. As of 2022 there are at least 15,000 Montessori schools documented in 154 countries around the world (Debs et al. 2022). This pedagogical approach takes many forms in a range of contexts for children from birth to adolescence.
In England, Montessori education has historically been the preserve of voluntarily and privately run Early Childhood Education centres. As an approach it is often defined by its exclusivity (BBC 2016) which belies its origins (AMI 2021) and the reality of who offers and who benefits from this approach. Several Montessori settings operate in socio-economically disadvantaged areas (Archer 2024).
I first learned about this educational approach and its impact when I worked in a Montessori centre in an underserved area in England in the early 2000s - a time of significant investment through Sure Start, Neighbourhood Nurseries and children's centres. Informed by this experience I wanted to better understand the work of Montessori leaders in these areas - their motivations, challenges and successes in contemporary contexts.
My BECERA presentation details a small-scale qualitative research study which sought to understand the work of Montessori leaders in low-income areas of England in 2023. Firstly, I determined possible participating centres through their postcode and the Index of Multiple Deprivation. Having established the socio-economic context of each centre, I approached leaders of these centres to seek their involvement. A series of online interviews with centre leaders was then undertaken to form case studies of each setting. These interview data were then analysed thematically.
Following in-depth interviews with nine leaders, the following findings were discerned:
Participants articulated values-led leadership – inspired by the work of Dr Maria Montessori
Leaders were driven by a commitment to equity and social justice
Central to their work was building a sense of connectedness: supporting the child, family and community
The idea of ‘school readiness’ was being reimagined as learning for life
Across these findings two overarching themes were discerned. Firstly, a commitment to social justice was explicit in the motivations of leaders. Leaders drew on Montessori’s writing to inform their values-based, relational leadership in challenging times. Secondly, leaders exhibited ‘critical hope’ (Zembylas 2014). This critical hope took the form of both critique of unjust power relations and commitment to connectedness and solidarity within local communities. My discussion and conclusions highlight critical hope for social justice reframing the work of Montessori leaders in terms of their moral responsibility and their commitment to human flourishing.
I am grateful to the participants for sharing their stories of their important work with children and families.
About the author
Dr Nathan Archer is a researcher in early childhood education. He has a professional background as a Montessori teacher and has worked in early childhood education for over twenty years in practice, policy and research.
Blue Sky: @nathanarcher.bsky.social
LinkedIn: Dr Nathan Archer | LinkedIn
Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nathan-Archer-2
References
Archer, N., (2024). Walking a desire track: Montessori pedagogy as resistance to normative pathways. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, pp.1-19. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14681366.2024.2355097
Association Montessori Internationale (2021) On This Day 6 January 1942 https://archives.montessori-ami.org/news/day-6-january-1942
BBC (2016) Fit for a prince? Montessori schools tackle 'middle-class' image https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35253290
Debs, M. C., J. de Brouwer, A. K. Murray, L. Lawrence, M. Tyne, and C. von der Wehl. 2022. “Global Diffusion of Montessori Schools: A Report from the 2022 Global Montessori Census.” Journal of Montessori Research 8 (2): 1–15.
Zembylas, M. (2014). Affective, political and ethical sensibilities in pedagogies of critical hope: Exploring the notion of ‘critical emotional praxis.’ In V. Bozalek, B. Leibowitz, R. Carolissen, & M. Boler (Eds.), Discerning critical hope in educational practices (pp. 11–25). New York: Routledge.
If you’re interested in this, you might also like
Sakr, M., Halls, K., & Cooper, K. (2023). Early Years leadership development during workforce crisis: perspectives of 24 UK training providers. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 32(1), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2023.2234108
Opazo, M.-J. et al. (2022) ‘You are stuck here, at the office: Chilean ECEC principals’ pedagogical leadership in JUNJI and Integra Foundation’, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 31(2), pp. 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2022.2031247
Lyndon, H. (2024) ‘Pedagogic mediation for praxis development: supporting leaders and mentors in the English ECEC context’, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, pp. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2024.2413858
Valkonen, S. and Furu, A.-C. (2022) ‘Finnish ECEC personnel’s views on the challenging nature of promoting social justice: a sustainability research perspective’, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 31(4), pp. 529–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2022.2154818
Aguiar, C. et al. (2019) ‘Early interventions tackling inequalities experienced by immigrant, low-income, and Roma children in 8 European countries: a critical overview’, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 28(1), pp. 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2020.1707363