Talk:Montessori education

Article lacks objectivity

It seems that the entire Article is written with the sole objective to promote - Association Montessori Internationale (AMI) and American Montessori Society (AMS) and direct all visitors to those organisation. Not as per standards of wikipedia. Additionally, Information presented here is also highly incorrect.

Firstly congratulations to the authors of the article. Well and extensively written and easily understood.

Unfortunately the article does not come across as presenting an unbiased and therefore reliable source of independent information, rather it reads like a well written detailed advertisement for the Montessori method of education.

The article fails to adequately cite nor addressing the many concerns that exist about this methodology, including; -The lack of regular testing or grading, that make it hard for students to leave the system, -Overly rigid development stages that can trap children and slow their development, -Outdated teaching methodologies developed 100 years ago that are not adequately questioned or revised and may not adequately assist the modern learner.

Most importantly the article fails to address the lack of research to back up claims that this particular education methodology has any validity greater than what is already well known to bring about better education outcomes i.e -smaller class sizes -more active participation by parents -individual attention by teachers As far as I know there are no studies that show any improved outcomes from Montessori education above the benefits from the above factors. Please note, I am not trying to say the methods don't work, I'm rather trying to say their is n conclusive evidence that they work any better than the above factors applied to any other methodology.

I apologise that as an adult trainer, and aid worker I do not have the background nor time to provide a detailed rewrite. --Bigyabbie (talk) 07:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Trolling

The Montessori method is an approach to educating children based on the research and experiences of Italian physician and educator Maria —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.85.31.253 (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Music in Montessori facts

I noticed the music section has a lot of stuff suggesting that music make you smarter or something like that. I don't know enough about that topic to comment authoritatively, but I believe a lot of these claims have been dis-proven in recent years. Like the "Little Enstines Videos" that were recalled because they didn't actually make kids smarter. In providing citations for this general information it would be best if it wasn't from Montessori material because that way it will carry more weight. Also I don't think most people speak to little kids becuase they are more sensitize to the high pitched sounds. In general people probably aren't aware of things like this. Lotu (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Responding to the comment by Lotu above. I believe you are referring to the experiments done in California (early 90's) supposedly stating that listening to Mozart specifically made you smarter. This was proven to be false in that listening to any music (Mozart, Chopin, Led Zeppelin) improved cognitive abilities, not just Mozart. Davincisbeard (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy Section

The Philosophy section is obviously very incorrect and written by someone who does not understand Montessori well. (My apologies to whoever wrote it).

I will start to look closely at it this week, check the references, correct them, and go from there. Anyone else willing to help? It's been a while since I really worked on this very much. MattThePuppetGuy (talk) 06:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

POV

I'm a bit concerned that the content is weighing heavily in favor of the Montessori method, to the point of appearing to advocate it. While more-or-less subtle, it struck me pretty blatantly while reading. Unfortunately, I'd consider myself quite ill-suited to the task of re-writing anything whatsoever in a neutral manner (due to a short temper and an instinct to play devil's advocate), so I'd ask some regular contributor with a better sense of neutrality to read through and possibly makes changes if needed. 173.25.85.179 (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you elaborate what you see that makes you feel it is biased? I am not sure where to begin with your suggestion. MattThePuppetGuy (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a new user with some Montessori expertise thinking of doing some work on this article. As I understand both Montessori and Wikipedia (frequent user, first-time contributor), it seems to need a pretty significant re-write to be both NPOV and encyclopedic. As a rank newbie, I'm not sure how to communicate directly with the above posters-MattThePuppetGuy, your 'talk' link is red and there doesn't seem to be a user page with this name--can anyone help here? Dave Ayer (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, now I get how to leave a message for MattThePuppetGuy. Learning curve, steep end... Dave Ayer (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Dave. If you would like to do some or all of the re-write for this article, consider that one of Wikipedia's five pillars includes the advice, "Be bold!". BrainMarble (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Came looking for Montessori information, article appears clearly biased in favour in a number of ways and makes some pretty bold, vague and unsubstantiated claims (e.g. claiming that even educators don't understand Montessori). The pathetically weak criticism section seems further evidence as such. For instance, there is no mention that Montessori schools assign no homework (a pretty common criticism). Most notably however, while the page mentions Dr. Angeline Stoll Lillard's 2005 book Montessori: The Science Behind the Genius -- it fails to note that Lillard cites research indicating that the children do better in later schooling than non-Montessori children in all subjects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.200.245.2 (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This article does need some rewording and restructuring. However the above criticism about homework is simply untrue. Most Montessori schools are nurseries/pre K so of course they don't set homework. Montessori elementary and secondary schools almost universally DO set homework. We do need it to be balanced but also accurate and written by someone who knows about Montessori methods. No offence meant, but adding in criticisms for the sake of it doesn't seem neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Primaryteach99 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I came here to do some reading for possible education for my daughter. I was genuinely puzzled that there didn't seem to be any discussion at all of efficacy, empirical evidence for / against or common criticisms. Even the kind of back and forth above - 'A common criticism is that most M schools don't set homework - but most M schools are nurseries/pre K' - would make the page look more credible. As it is, the absence of critical discussion has left me more sceptical about Montessori than I was when I came here! 85.210.8.5 (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I attended a Montessori primary school in The Netherlands - it is not true that Montessori schools do not give homework, they *minimize* the amount of homework given.82.176.204.198 (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Revision

I posted earlier this year about my intent to do a substantial revision of this article. As it will essentially replace the current article, I thought it polite to give a bit of notice and explain my reasoning.

My background: I received an Association Montessori Internationale Primary Diploma in 1994, and I have taught in Montessori schools more or less continuously since then. My wife is an AMI Elementary teacher, and in school to be an AMI Elementary teacher trainer, and we have many personal contacts in the AMI Montessori world. I'm an avid reader of Montessori's works and, while I am a Montssori advocate, I've also been a critic of some expressions of her work and of the organization of the Montessori world generally. I probably qualify as an 'expert' outside the Montessori world, and as an experienced practitioner within.

The current article is not unusable as it stands, but it seems to me not to describe the structure and elements of Montessori with the clarity the subject deserves. In my revision, I've done my best to lay out the basic structures of the Montessori approach with reference to her published works and a few secondary sources. I'm aware of the Wiki-preference for primary over secondary sources, and I've done my best to avoid original research. However, many of Montessori's published works are in fact collections of her lectures, and there does not exist a comprehensive, concise statement of her educational method in her own words--instead, it is scattered across her works. There exists a fairly clear vision of her philosophy and methods with in the AMI teacher training, but it isn't published, and it could be said to represent just one point of view. ON the other hand, published summaries are few and have often got significant parts wrong, with respect to what she actually wrote. So--I've done my best.

I should also add that I mentioned my current employer--the Hershey Montessori School--in the article. It is in fact the only school offering full boarding for adolescents as described by Montessori, but if the reference is felt to be POV, it can be removed.

The draft I am planning to post is in my sandbox at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dave_Ayer/Sandbox. (I'm new to Wiki, so if this is not a useful link, or if there's a better way to do what I'm doing, I'm happy to learn.)

Thanks,

Dave Ayer (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In addition, I propose to rename (or move) this page to "Montessori Education." "The Montessori Method" was the title of Montessori's first book, and published accounts in Italian (no ref at present but they can be found I'm sure) referred to 'il metodo Montessori,' but the term is not in wide use in the Montessori world today. 'Montessori Education' is more commonly used and is more comprehensive, alluding to her philosophical ideas about education, beyond the strict application of a method.

I looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Moving_a_page and it did not seem to me that a formal request was necessary, or that movenotice was needed, and I assume any interested party has this page on their watchlist. So I plan to proceed with replacing the existing text and moving the page. Dave Ayer (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, I made the move and tried to fix the redirects. 'Montessori Education' is now the main article in the category 'Montessori Education' and 'Montessori Method' no longer exists (except, of course, the term could certainly be mentioned in the article).

But: It seems that there is an article 'Montessori education' (lower-case 'e') that redirects to Montessori Method, which redirects to Montessori Education (big 'e'.) I'm asking around for some help on this as I don't want to botch things up. Dave Ayer (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Revisions, continued

User talk:128.253.211.77, thanks for your additions to this article. The history of Montessori's introduction and re-introduction to the United States is interesting and quite relevant--I think there will eventually be a separate article on the subject. However, I'm making a few changes to your edit. First, (I'm new here, but) I think you might need permission for the citation from http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella22.1.html Montessori, Peace, and Libertarianism. Second, it doesn't look to be a particularly good source for the information, as it seems to be a blog written by a Montessori parent. In particular, there was no AMI presence in the U.S. after 1917 because AMI was not founded until 1929--maybe this is what you meant, but it wasn't clear to me. Also, the Nancy Rambush story is a bit more complex than you make it out. The only significant published source I've been able to find for the details is on the AMS website, which might be considered biased, but seems to square with what I have heard and read elsewhere. Also, there is a distinction between AMI-USA, an affiliate of AMI which has a Wikipedia page, and AMI proper, which does not. AMI is what Montessori founded in 1929, so the link to AMI-USA is not appropriate.

Your addition to the last paragraph from the website referenced above doesn't seem to me to add much to the paragraph, and doesn't bring in information from a significant source, so I am taking it out. I also don't think 'so-called' AMI schools is quite right--that is what AMI and other Montessorians call them, and I don't know that the label is in dispute.Dave Ayer (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

After a lot of trying to clean up the old page, starting over is a smart choice. Nice revisions, Dave. MattThePuppetGuy (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Tag

Considering that the article has been revised and rewritten, I am removing the POV tag.Buster Seven Talk 14:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Profit?

Are Montessori schools run for profit or as non-profit entities? Obviously expenses are incurred and revenues are earned (tuition), so this needs to be addressed. These are definitely not publicly-funded nor publicly-supported schools. Taxes do not support them, as evidenced by: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2011/05/31/ottawa-montessori-bishop-hamilton-closing.html
--Atikokan (talk) 04:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Montessori schools can be, and are, operated under a number of different business arrangements, and the organizational structure is not relevant to the pedagogy. In the United States, many Montessori schools are 501 (c)(3) non-profit educational institutions, some are privately owned, some are parts of public school programs, and some are organized as charter schools. Dave Ayer (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Controversy

The article fails to take into account the controversy surrounding this teaching method. While on the one hand there are many people who believe that this method is the best way for children to learn, there are also many critics who believe that it is irresponsible and does not adequately prepare children for post-secondary education and real life. A non-biased mention/contrast of the two viewpoints would be a great addition to this article. For this reason, I am re-adding the POV tag, since the article currently fails to take into account all viewpoints--it paints the picture of a teaching method that is mainstream and undisputed. --Jmajeremy (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Note this paragraph in particular:

Montessori education spread to the United States in 1911 and became widely known in education and popular publications. However, conflict between Montessori and the American educational establishment, and especially the publication in 1914 of a critical booklet, The Montessori System Examined by influential education teacher William Heard Kilpatrick, limited the spread of her ideas, and they languished after 1914.[6] Montessori education returned to the United States in 1960 and has since spread to thousands of schools there.

It implies that while there was brief controversy after this 1914 publication, ever since 1960 it has been undisputed. This simply fails to acknowledge the fact that to this day Montessori is seen as an alternative form of education that has fundamental contradictions to American and other Western education systems. --Jmajeremy (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Rather than merely inferring that there may be present day controversy, it would benefit your fellow editors to provide some references for the "contradictions". That there are fundamental differences in technique and daily class experiences is a given. I'd like to see some hard facts to support the controversy and the tag.Buster Seven Talk 15:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Buster Seven. Montessori is an alternative approach to education, but that in itself does not make it controversial. In fact, one of the difficulties with writing an encyclopedic article on the subject is that little independent research comparing Montessori to other models exists. If no-one is arguing about its differences or effectiveness, it can hardly be considered controversial. I propose that, after a decent interval allowing for an editor to cite some independent, verifiable source describing a controversy, POV be removed. Dave Ayer (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Per my previous post, I am removing the POV tag. If someone would like to add a source indicating a controversy, feel free to put it in. Dave Ayer (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

A Dutch woman Karin Schaapman alias Karina Content had huge problems with a Montessori school which she blamed, in part on its philosophy. She wrote a book about it. Andries (talk) 08:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Dutch language article Municipality is convicted to pay for extra lessons. Andries (talk) 08:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Famous Montessori pupils

Wikipedia articles list famous pupils of a particular college or prominent high school. Has there ever been an attempt to list prominent personalities who attended Montessori school when they were younger? Fotoguzzi (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. Maybe we could start collecting some names here before moving them to the main page at a future point. Buster Seven Talk 01:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

List of Prominent Montessori Graduates

• Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com
• Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis, former First Lady
• Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google.com
• Larry Page, co-founder of Google.com
• Julia Child, famous chef
• Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia
• Prince William and Prince Harry, English Royal Family
• George Clooney, actor/director
• Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Noble Prize winner for Literature

Interesting list! Fotoguzzi (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy to source and document this list if it is felt to be encyclopedic and appropriate. Dave Ayer (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Minor edit

I removed "Montessori schools are trademarked elementary schools." I don't even know what this means. Dave Ayer (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Criticism?

Has there been any criticism of the method? I would presume that as it's a minority philosophy in terms of number of schools that there must be reasons why it isn't mainstream. However, the article currently implies that there is no argument about any of the ideas, which while the statements themselves are not rabidly pro-Montessori it feels POV by omission. Thryduulf (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason it's a minority is probably not relevant to the criticism, but such exists, and needs to be added. Until then this is POV. I'll mark it as such, and hope to have time to find reliable source criticism later. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I know, I was about to say: an article about an alternative style of doing... something on Wikipedia without a criticism section?!? I was definitely shocked. --WikiDonn (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Research paper about Montessori outcomes relative to standard ed

I have no time to include this info- http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5795/1893.full.pdf

The design of the study looks solid, even if the author does seem to advocate Montessori.137.111.13.167 (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in and agree that this is a very high quality RS and the author being positive about Montessori doesn't make the findings any less credible. I skimmed it but editors should look for a review article citing its findings per WP:No original research and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Surely one exists by now. Jellypear (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Google scholar shows it cited 126 times. I don't have time to sift through these to see which best approximates a complete review article but am happy to help. If memory serves, the first author also wrote the best book on Montessori outcomes so there may be a way to discuss the findings via that route. In any event, high quality RS. Jellypear (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Educational Materials

Seems that a section about the specialized educational materials, including some illustrations, would be appropriate. Regards, PeterEasthope (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Montessori as philosophy not practice

I can kinda see the point of this edit. It seems like a reasonable point of view that Montessori can be seen as a philosophy rather than a practice and, especially in a modern context, one should try to combine that philosophy with other ideas to come up with a modern curriculum. However,

1. The way it is written is slightly incoherent.
2. The source provided is also slightly incoherent. Is there a better written and more reliable source?
3. Please don't edit war. The bold, revert, discuss cycle suggests that the change, once reverted, should stay out of the article until consensus is reached about what to put in.

Thanks.

Yaris678 (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree conceptually as well. The problem is that this a philosophy of education kind of point that applies to many kinds of schools that need to be described in wikipedia. At some point you have to draw the line with what makes most sense for readers. As I stated below, people generally want to read about "the Montessori approach to education" or "the John Dewey approach to education" and then learn more about which schools practice these ideas. What these early theorists advocated or did themselves isn't necessarily the exact thing that is done day in and day out in the schools that carry their name. There is form, but there is also freedom, and any provocative educational approach will live as a strong idea in the minds of teachers and be the source of innovation and change. Personally, I think this is a very important question but practically speaking - and without any reliable sources I can think of - I am not sure how it could be conveyed on a wikipedia page. Jellypear (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

List of graduates

Some of those listed as "graduates" never attended a Montessori school; most of the others only attended briefly. I've changed the title to "alumni" and added a few references and indications of when they attended (e.g. pre-school, grade school, etc.) More work is needed. hgilbert (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The primary reference now used to support these appears to be a blog, though one hosted by the Wall Street Journal. Not the best source. There is still no mention of how long and for what part of their education these alumni attended. This would not be a big deal except that most appear only to have attended M. schools for a year or two. hgilbert (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Howdy. I concur it is definitely not the best source. Normally, I don't use blogs as sources, but I figured that because it was a part of the Wall Street Journal it could possibly be a bit more reliable. There is a video on YouTube of a Barbara Walters segment on ABC that discusses Larry Page and Sergey Brin going to a Montessori school. Unfortunately, the video wasn't uploaded by ABC, so it is most likely a copyright violation.--Rockfang (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest searching for the individuals and "Montessori" in Google Scholar or Books. You might find better and more comprehensive sources to replace the blog. hgilbert (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Montessori authenticity

I had revised Montessori authenticity, Earlier this whole block was written with an intent to promote specific organizations by showing their proximity to Maria Montessori, thus the whole idea of article fails, the article is titled - Montessori Education (not Montessori biography. Today, more than 100 organizations are promoting Montessori Education, although most of such organization are using word - Association etc., with a dubious interest. Lets not do this. Lets not bring some organization, selling 'Montessori' into the article titled - 'Montessori Education'. Even if Montessori had started some organization in her lifetime, name of such organization shall find a place in her Biography, not here. Idea of writing names of such organization is only with an intent to promote them (ethically wrong). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.151.58 (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you try again to express your concerns regarding Montessori authenticity? Readers deserve to know about AMS and AMI and the court ruling regarding the Montessori method. In the United States, anyone can open a school and call it "Montessori." Such a school could be for-profit, non-profit, very good, or not so good. There is a sense among parents and Montessorians that AMI or AMS accreditation/affiliation indicates higher quality or better adherence to the Montessori method. Wikipedia can't take a position on this commonly held belief but there is no reason not to discuss accreditation and governance facts on this page in a POV-free way. Again, could you describe your concern? Jellypear (talk) 17:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is mentioned below and whatever we shall put on this article has to be seen from the point of view that whatever we shall do here should be for the Common benefit (Refer Benthem Happiness principle): When we say "Montessori Education" we just need to know what all Montessori perpetrated her idea regarding Education. AMI and AMS are 'not interest free' organisation, meaning they have INTEREST into promoting 'Montessori', not 'DISCUSSING' Montessori. Besides, AMI and AMS, there are hundreds other organization (having named themselves 'Association'), why not promote them as well? Why only AMI and AMS has to be anointed and not others? Parents, by referring that a particular School is associated/accredited/affiliated with AMI and/or AMS, and so is good, is not at all a good idea. The commonly held principle is - Caveat Emptor (Buyer's Beawre), so make buyers beawre and not blind buyer by pushing names. If, anybody thinks that pushing AMI and AMS on this article is free point of view (although i strongly disagree)then they should do it on "Montessori Biography", this article is titles - "Montessori Education", so please only write what 'Montessori' referred to as 'Education'. And, please before reverting the article, put a hand on your heart and then do it, and kind request is that before reverting - First Discuss and lets reach to a final common agreement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.151.58 (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

So, what do you want? AMI and AMS are organizations that exist to support and promote understanding of Montessori education. Many schools and teachers are affiliated with these organizations and they are viewed as credible sources of information about the Montessori method. But plenty of Montessori schools and teachers are not affiliated with them and there is no reason to believe they are inferior by not being members. Are you concerned that non-affiliated schools will somehow be seen as inferior? Perhaps the heading "Authenticity" is too leading? Maybe it could be changed to "Governance" or something else that describes the nature of Montessori schools as independent schools adhering to a common educational belief system and approach? Again, what are you specifically looking for here? Jellypear (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing cited material is generally not a good idea without more justification than personal opinion. The cited references are our standard; if they emphasize certain organizations, we should follow their lead. See WP:NPOV. hgilbert (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Jellypear and Hgilbert (and most importantly, reply is written here with an intent to help the real Wikipedia contributors): 1. Article is amply clearly titled 'Montessori Education', so what all 'Montessori' has told about 'Education' should be written here. 2. If we are not going to follow point no. 1, it will lead to that - whatsoever Montessori has done in her lifetime will find a place here. 3. 'Education' and 'promoting specific organization those who might be following/promoting such education' are two different words and also two different stuff. 4. The manner in which entire content was written, most importantly, should not find a place here, secondly, the way it was written was surely not a Free/No interest point of view. 5. Citation is one thing, what was done here is that, forcefully some matter was inserted (which in fact could not be a part of this article) so as to arise the need of citation and hence should not find a place here in this article. 6. 'Citation' and 'Forceful Citation' so as to simply promote some specific organization are two different things. 7. Very importantly, sticking to the Article, will benefit masses and promote the very idea of wikipedia. (this is not required to be discussed here, however just for your understanding - Montessori schools be it independent schools or affiliated / part of franchise system / or anything else, is not same thing as Montessori Education, the mere usage of word makes it clear.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.228.112 (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I understand what you are saying now. Unfortunately, there are not two separate pages for "Montessori education" - as a methodology - and "Montessori schools" as educational institutions that practice Montessori methods. I guess they could be two different pages but I don't see any reason why they should be. Presumably readers come here to learn about the content of the method and the schools that use this method. I still don't follow your concerns with mentioning AMI & AMS and I really don't see any POV in discussing their existence on this page. They are relevant to the topic of the page which is intentionally made broad by naming it "Montessori Education" and not "the Montessori Method" or something like that. Jellypear (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

To Jellypear - Wikipedians might find it interesting to know - What are those relevant points pertaining to 'Montessori Education' article, that any organization/people/association shall have to find a place here? But, this is no point of discussion here. Point of discussion is - The Content and the manner in which entire paragraph was presented here, was not at all in any sync / flow / relevance with the topic / article. Specifically, earlier written paragraph simply use to put/ send across an 'image' that the entire article is written with an intent only to promote some specific organization. SO, the question is that whether 'Can some specific organization be promoted on Wikipedia, by writing an article in a smart and disguised manner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.205.245.173 (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Here are some wikipedia policies that might answer your question. WP:SOAP - WP:NPOV - WP:notability and WP:RS . Hope these are helpful. Jellypear (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Montessori Societies

This entire paragraph is not at all relevant to be put here, as it doesn't belongs here. Article is titled - 'Montessori Education'. There are more than one million people preaching/training/promoting 'Montessori Education', and they dont have to do anything with this article. Referring specific names of origination simply reflect the 'Reference Building Exercise', which not appropriate for wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for 'Reference Building' and thus end up promoting specific organization. It clearly seems that entire article was build up to insert this paragraph only, a clear violation of various wikipedia policies. Adherence to wikipedia policies is very much required, so please adhere to these - WP:SOAP - WP:NPOV - WP:notability and WP:RS, and not just mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.231.71.131 (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

NPOV dispute, once again it seems

I'm placing the POV tag on this article for two reasons:

1. There is no information on the method's effectiveness 2. There is no information on criticism and the merits of critical arguments Moonboy54 (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Once again? You mean 2 1/2 years later? Rather than throw a tag, do some research and provide the information you request. ```Buster Seven Talk 06:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Removing tag per the "Controvery" section above and lack of sources. There is an infinitude of information not in the article. The fact that the article does not mention something is not evidence of POV without source support. aprock (talk) 01:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Phonogram not phonograph

The image in the lead shows children using a phonogram movable type alphabet. An IP editor incorrectly changed it to "phonograph" and incorrectly rewrote a sentence. I reverted and provided a reference to explain "phonogram movable alphabet". The IP editor now wants to edit war over the change. ```Buster Seven Talk 10:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)