Estimulação FE

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 30 October 2017

doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01783
Montessori Preschool Elevates and

Equalizes Child Outcomes: A
Longitudinal Study
Angeline S. Lillard 1*, Megan J. Heise 1 , Eve M. Richey 1 , Xin Tong 1 , Alyssa Hart 1 and
Paige M. Bray 2
1
Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, United States, 2 Department of Education, University of
Hartford, Hartford, CT, United States
Quality preschool programs that develop the whole child through age-appropriate
socioemotional and cognitive skill-building hold promise for significantly improving child
outcomes. However, preschool programs tend to either be teacher-led and didactic,
or else to lack academic content. One preschool model that involves both child-
directed, freely chosen activity and academic content is Montessori. Here we report
a longitudinal study that took advantage of randomized lottery-based admission to two
public Montessori magnet schools in a high-poverty American city. The final sample
included 141 children, 70 in Montessori and 71 in other schools, most of whom were
tested 4 times over 3 years, from the first semester to the end of preschool (ages 3–6),
on a variety of cognitive and socio-emotional measures. Montessori preschool elevated
Edited by:
Michael S. Dempsey, children’s outcomes in several ways. Although not different at the first test point, over
Boston University, United States time the Montessori children fared better on measures of academic achievement, social
Reviewed by: understanding, and mastery orientation, and they also reported relatively more liking
Jennifer M. Zosh,
Pennsylvania State University, of scholastic tasks. They also scored higher on executive function when they were 4.
United States In addition to elevating overall performance on these measures, Montessori preschool
Anna V. Fisher,
also equalized outcomes among subgroups that typically have unequal outcomes.
Carnegie Mellon University,
United States First, the difference in academic achievement between lower income Montessori and
*Correspondence: higher income conventionally schooled children was smaller at each time point, and
Angeline S. Lillard was not (statistically speaking) significantly different at the end of the study. Second,
[email protected]
defying the typical finding that executive function predicts academic achievement,
Specialty section: in Montessori classrooms children with lower executive function scored as well on
This article was submitted to academic achievement as those with higher executive function. This suggests that
Educational Psychology,
a section of the journal Montessori preschool has potential to elevate and equalize important outcomes, and
Frontiers in Psychology a larger study of public Montessori preschools is warranted.
Received: 13 July 2017
Keywords: early childhood education, preschool, Montessori, cognitive development, social development, theory
Accepted: 25 September 2017
of mind, mastery orientation, academic achievement
Published: 30 October 2017
Citation:
Lillard AS, Heise MJ, Richey EM,
Tong X, Hart A and Bray PM (2017)
INTRODUCTION
Montessori Preschool Elevates
and Equalizes Child Outcomes:
Optimizing preschool education is important from both economic and developmental standpoints
A Longitudinal Study. (Heckman, 2006; Blair and Raver, 2016). The human brain undergoes marked development
Front. Psychol. 8:1783. in the first 6 years, and the environment interacts with gene expression producing changes
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01783 that appear to be permanent (Zhang and Meaney, 2010). Furthermore, neural development
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 October 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1783

Lillard et al. Preschool Child Outcomes
proceeds in a hierarchical fashion, with later attainments built tested just once during the school year. These limitations are also
on earlier ones (Merzenich, 2001). Economic analyses show that problematic.
the highest rates of return on educational investments in human In the present study, children in two high-fidelity public
capital are derived from preschool programs (Heckman, 2006). Montessori magnet schools (11 classrooms) who had gained
Yet the two primary examples of successfull early childhood admission via a random computerized district-level lottery at
interventions (Perry Preschool and the Abecedarian Project) 3 years old were compared to a group who had lost the lottery
are from the 1960s (Campbell et al., 2002; Schweinhart et al., and attended other non-Montessori schools, over half of which
2005) and were small studies with very intensive interventions were private schools. Children (N = 141) were tested over the fall
that would be very expensive (on the order of $20,000/year per semester when they were 3 years old, and then again at the end of
child) to implement in today’s dollars (Minervino and Pianta, the school year for three consecutive years. The tests, described
2014). Doing such interventions at scale would be exceedingly next, assessed a variety of skills known to be important to later
difficult. However, some alternative public preschool programs success.
can feasibly be widely implemented; one such program is Children’s academic ability is considered of primary
Montessori. Understanding if such programs provide measurable importance in school assessments. For young children, initial
benefit to young children’s development is a prerequisite to progress in reading, vocabulary, and numerical understanding
determining whether to attempt implementation at scale. are valued indicators. Here we measured these with four
Montessori education aligns with principles and practices that Woodcock–Johnson IIIR Tests of Achievement: Letter-Word,
a century of research has shown are more optimal for child Picture Vocabulary, Applied Problems, and Calculation
development than the principles and practices that undergird (Woodcock et al., 2001). The Woodcock-Johnson tests have
conventional schooling (Lillard, 2017). Developed by a physician good psychometric properties as described in the manual, and
in the first half of the 20th century, the educational method are frequently used to measure school outcomes.
stemmed from close observation of children in relatively free Academic benefit might have trade-offs in social learning;
environments. It provides a complex and interrelated set of indeed, Montessori education has been criticized for being
hands-on materials and lessons across major topic areas and is “asocial” since the children rarely participate in whole-class
designed for children ages 0 to 12+ years (Montessori, 1994a). activities (DeVries and Gonçu, 1987). Social cognition was
Within a structure created by the materials and teacher oversight, measured with the Theory of Mind scale (Wellman and Liu,
children are free to make constructive choices among activities 2004), which has good internal and external validity (Wellman,
that they have been taught, to explore personal interests (with 2014); for example, it predicts later social competence (Wellman,
the caveat that they also engage broadly), and to decide whether 2014). A central construct in the Theory of Mind scale is
to work alone or with peers in the multi-age classrooms. There understanding of false belief, which has garnered considerable
are no grades or extrinsic rewards, and learning is situated in attention in developmental psychology and education in the last
real or simulative contexts. Montessori education is aimed at 30 years (Blair and Razza, 2007). Understanding that someone
development of the whole child, integrating social and cognitive can have a false belief entails the crucial understanding that
growth for healthy independent functioning. minds represent the world, and that people’s behaviors are
The first studies of Montessori outcomes lacked good controls based not (necessarily) on the way the world actually is, but
or had small samples and compromises in program quality; for on how they represent the world to be (Dennett, 1987). The
example, they used single-age classrooms, added non-Montessori Theory of Mind scale contextualizes this key understanding
activities, and/or had teachers with minimal training (Karnes with steps leading up to it (understanding of perception and
et al., 1983; Miller and Bizzell, 1984). Program quality is its relation to knowledge, and understanding that people can
clearly an important consideration, as children in higher-fidelity believe different things) and following it (understanding that the
Montessori classrooms (where children had only Montessori emotions we convey might be different from the emotions we
activities) had larger social and cognitive school-year gains than actually feel).
those in lower-fidelity ones (Lillard, 2012). However, the Lillard Although theory of mind is related to social competence, they
(2012) study had serious limitations, including that the children are different constructs. Social competence was measured more
were middle-income and not randomly assigned to the schools, directly with stories from the Rubin’s Social Problem-Solving
which were private. Such limitations are common in the relatively Test - Revised (Rubin, 1988); a different story was used each year,
few existing studies of Montessori education (Rathunde and and scoring was modified to home in on the maturity of social
Csikszentmihalyi, 2005; Peng and Md-Yunus, 2014). competence revealed in children’s responses. In these stories, one
Another study avoided these problems by testing 5-year-olds child has a coveted resource (like a swing) that another child
in a high-fidelity public inner-city Montessori school who really wants, and children need to come up with strategies the
had gained admission through a computerized district-level focal child could use to obtain the resource; responses like “I
random lottery when they were 3 years old, and compared their would ask her to share for 10 min then she could have it for
outcomes to those of 5-year-olds who had lost that lottery and 10 more minutes” are considered highly competent, whereas
were at non-Montessori schools (Lillard and Else-Quest, 2006). “I’d tell the teacher” or “I’d say please, please, please” are
The Montessori children significantly outperformed the control not. Other studies have shown that children in high-fidelity
children on an array of measures. In that study, however, the Montessori preschools show more social competence on this
sample of preschoolers was small (N = 55), and the children were task (as well as better playground interactions) than children in

other types of preschools (Lillard and Else-Quest, 2006; Lillard, education does not use them, we expected that children might
2012). be more mastery oriented by the last 2 years of Montessori
Theory of mind is also strongly associated with executive preschool. Mastery orientation was measured with a modification
function and involves many of the same neural structures of a puzzle task developed by Smiley and Dweck (1994). Children
(for example the medial and lateral prefrontal cortex and the were given an easy and a very difficult (actually, impossible)
temporo-parietal junction) (Carlson and Moses, 2001; Koster- puzzle to solve, and then later were offered the opportunity to
Hale and Saxe, 2013; Powell and Carey, 2017). Executive function work on either puzzle again. Convergent evidence suggests that
was measured in this study because it undergirds self-regulatory children who choose to continue to work on an unsolvable puzzle
skills that are important to academic and life success (Blair are “persisters” with a stronger mastery orientation than children
and Razza, 2007; Diamond, 2013; Vernon-Feagans et al., 2016); who choose to work again on an easy puzzle (Smiley and Dweck,
in fact, self-regulation at age 4 predicts health, wealth, and 1994). Having a mastery-oriented mindset predicts achievement
criminality outcomes at age 32 (Moffitt et al., 2011). Here over time (Dweck, 2006). Because it would take time for an
executive function was measured with two tasks; a full battery of orientation like this to develop in a school program, and because
tests would have been desirable (Willoughby et al., 2011; Lipsey it involved a 0–1 response, choices at the first two vs. the last two
et al., 2017), but time constraints only allowed two. One executive time points were examined.
function task was Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders (HTKS), in which The second new construct was feelings about academic
a child must do the opposite of a command (for example, touch tasks. Early academic achievement might occur at the expense
their toes when asked to touch their head). To do this, a child of enjoying school tasks, which is undesirable since enjoying
must keep a command in mind along with the rule to execute its kindergarten predicts later school achievement (Ladd et al.,
opposite, must inhibit the opposite response, and must executive 2000). Not liking school tasks could stem from extensive
the required one. This task has good psychometric properties and emphasis on academics and could presage burnout, an issue
is related to other tests of executive function as well as concurrent recently raised with regard to a study of Tennessee preschoolers
and later academic success (McClelland et al., 2007; Ponitz et al., who performed less well by second grade than children who had
2008, 2009; Lipsey et al., 2017). The second executive function not gone to preschool (Lipsey et al., 2015; Haskins and Brooks-
assessment was the Copy Design subtest from the Visuospatial Gunn, 2016). Therefore we assessed children’s liking of academic
Processing section of the NEPSY-II (Korkman et al., 2007). For tasks such as school lessons and reading. However, because
this task, children see a design, and must hold it in mind as preschool-aged children tend to be very positive about many
they transform the visual image into its motor execution and a experiences, how much they professed to like leisure activities like
new resulting visual copy of that image. Thus working memory, playing and watching movies was also taken into account.
attention, inhibitory control, and execution skills are employed. Another measure not used in prior studies of Montessori
Design copy is highly related to other tests of executive function outcomes was the Alternate Uses task, which assesses creativity.
(Grissmer et al., 2010; Cameron et al., 2012; Fuhs et al., 2014; Creativity is certainly a desirable construct. Because conventional
Lipsey et al., 2017) and has good test-retest reliability (r = 0.72 in educational methods often require children to answer questions
Lipsey et al., 2017). Design copy ability is also related to academic in specific ways (as on multiple choice tests) but Montessori often
achievement (Grissmer et al., 2010). Although both of these tasks encourages independent exploration, Montessori might promote
require some similar executive function skills, HTKS involves more creativity. On the other hand, there are particular ways
large motor processes whereas Design Copy involves fine motor that children are instructed to use specific Montessori materials,
skills. and this could discourage creativity. Alternate Uses (sometimes
In addition to academic achievement, theory of mind, social called Creative or Unusual Uses) is a commonly used task that
competence, and executive function, which have been examined asks one to come up with as many uses as one can for common
previously, we also used three tasks not previously used in studies items like paper clips and towels (Guilford and Christensen,
of Montessori preschool. The first was the growth of a mastery 1973). It was administered at each time point after the first fall.
orientation. Mastery orientation is an important personal quality Many major current innovators, like both founders of Google
(Dweck, 2006) indicative of a “growth mindset” (Dweck, 2017): (Sergei Brin and Larry Page), the founder of Amazon (Jeff
a belief that with effort one can master challenges and increase Bezos), the creator of Wikipedia (Jimmy Wales) and the designer
one’s abilities. People who are mastery oriented want to learn, and of the once-revolutionary video game Sim City (Will Wright)
take on challenging tasks in order to do so. They are resilient, attended Montessori schools (McAfee, 2011; Gaylord, 2012), and
persisting even in the face of failure. Their implicit theory of other studies have shown that Montessori children are more
intelligence is that it is malleable, such that the harder one works, creative in later grades (Lillard and Else-Quest, 2006; Besançon
the better one can be. By contrast, people who are performance and Lubart, 2008), but not in preschool. To our knowledge, no
oriented seek to look good; their implicit theory of intelligence other study has used Alternate Uses with Montessori preschool
is that it is fixed, and they tend to give up in the face of failure. children.
About 80% of Americans naturally adopt one orientation or the In sum, the study measured children’s academic achievement,
other, but circumstances can alter those orientations. Clearly if theory of mind and social skills, executive function, mastery
school could increase mastery orientation, this would be positive. orientation, relative enjoyment of school, and creativity at four
Because conventional school practices like extrinsic rewards tend time points to determine whether Montessori education would
to instead encourage a performance orientation, and Montessori have a significant influence on those important constructs.

In addition to examining the overall efficacy of Montessori TABLE 1 | Sample characteristics.

preschool for these measures, the study (because of its
Montessori (n = 70) Control (n = 71)
sample size) permitted examination of Montessori’s potential
for disrupting the predictive power of certain variables for Age at Time 1 41.31 months 41.00 months
certain outcomes. One is the predictive power of income for Gender 39 Male 38 Male
achievement, or the income achievement gap. Childhood poverty Household income $73,208 $68,914
is a significant predictor of poor life outcomes (Brooks-Gunn Income range $0–180,000 $0–200,000
and Duncan, 1997; Yoshikawa et al., 2012). Education is widely Mother education 6.70 (1.30) 6.64 (1.12)
viewed as a ladder out of poverty, yet socio-economic status (SES) Father education 6.37 (1.38) 6.13 (1.23)
and school achievement are correlated (National Early Childcare Ethnicity: subsample percentages
Research Network, 2005; Sirin, 2005). The income achievement Caucasian 48% 37%
gap, which is larger than the racial achievement gap, is present African–American 17% 15%
by kindergarten and persists at that high level throughout school Hispanic 16% 23%
(Reardon, 2011). Here we examined Montessori’s potential to Asian 3% 4%
address the income achievement gap in preschool. Second, Multi-ethnic 16% 20%
executive function is known to predict many life outcomes Age at subsequent test points: T2: +6 months; T3: +18 months; T4: +30 months.
(Moffitt et al., 2011); children with poorer executive function There were no significant group differences in any demographic variable, nor was
generally do not do as well in school (Blair and Razza, 2007; there a difference in inter-test interval time, as indicated by t-tests. A Chi Square
test revealed no significant sample differences in ethnicity (p = 0.63). Income: In
Duncan et al., 2007), and so remedial programs like the Chicago both subsamples, 35% of sample < $50K household income; 80% < $100K. One
School Readiness Project (Raver et al., 2011) and Tools of the family declined to state income. Parent Education: 1 = less than 9th grade, 2 = 9th
Mind (Diamond et al., 2007) are instituted as costly add-on grade, 3 = 10th grade; 4 = 11th grade, 5 = High School diploma, 6 = some
College, 7 = College degree, and 8 = Post-graduate education.
programs. Montessori is a form of differentiated instruction that
can naturally support different levels of executive function. For
example, a child who needs more structure can be monitored controls who were at other non-Montessori schools. Children
more closely than a child who needs less structure. This is were 41.15 months old on average at the first test point,
more difficult to do in conventional schools, since the structure and each sample was ethnically diverse and had slightly
is set up to treat all children in a given class in the same more males than females. Household income ranged widely
way (Tomlinson, 2014). Because Montessori can more easily (because the lottery was for a magnet school) as did parent
and naturally accommodate differences in children, we ask education; the average parent had some college education, but
whether executive function might be less predictive in Montessori the range was from 9th grade through post-graduate. The
programs. two subsamples did not differ on any measured ethnographic
The samples were ethnically diverse and equivalent at the first variable.
test point in terms of parent education and income (ranging
from $0 to $200,000), child age, and Time 1 scores; this lack Recruitment
of pre-existing differences would be expected given the random All participants were recruited from Hartford, CT and its
lottery assignment. Slight (but non-significant) differences in outlying suburbs by letters sent home from the school district
performance at Time 1 could be due school programs already office following a school choice lottery (see below) in each
having influenced children at the first test point, which ranged of 4 years spanning 2010–2013; each participating child was
from mid-September to mid-December. Over the subsequent in the study for 3 years, so data collection spanned from fall
30 months, significant differences emerged on several measures, 2010 through spring 2016. Letters were sent to parents of all
all indicating better outcomes for children in the Montessori 3-year-olds who had been entered in a lottery listing one of
program. two public Montessori magnet schools as their first choice;
the letters were accompanied by contact, demographic, and
school information forms, a permission letter, and an envelope
MATERIALS AND METHODS to return their information to the study coordinator. Parents
were sent a $10 gift card as a thank you for returning the
This longitudinal study examined how children in Montessori vs. information forms. After spring tests each year, children were
other preschool environments changed over 3 years. The same sent an age-appropriate book and parents were sent a $50 gift
basic set of tests were administered to children at each time point. card.
The study was carried out in accordance with the guidelines for
human research of the Institutional Review Board for the Social Lottery
and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia, which The lottery was done by computer at the Connecticut State
approved the protocol. Department of Education’s Regional School Choice Office
in Hartford, CT in May of each year. A child’s parent or
Participants guardian had submitted a lottery application during the period
Sample characteristics are detailed in Table 1. In brief, the spanning October through February, selecting one of the two
final sample included 70 children in Montessori and 71 Montessori schools as their first of five school choices. The

lottery selection was random except for neighborhood, sibling, is preferred but not required. Three of the teachers originally at
and staff preferences. Staff children were disqualified from the one school had previously taught conventionally, and agreed to
study but 2 study children were admitted to a Montessori be retrained when the school converted to Montessori in 2008.
via the sibling preference; their siblings had presumably been There was some teacher turnover during the study but these
admitted at random so the latent parent characteristics the changes were not tracked at either Montessori or conventional
lottery was intended to control for were still present. One schools.
control child had been admitted to Montessori but did not
attend because the parents “did not like the neighborhood the Missing Data and Exclusions
school was in”; all other participants who gained admission Over 4 years, 174 children were admitted to the study; 141 were
to one of the two Montessori schools did become enrolled retained in the final sample. Of these 141, 122 children were tested
there. These two siblings and the admitted non-attender were at all 4 time points, and 19 were tested at 3 time points. Of these
assigned to the school program group they were actually in, but 19, one joined the study at Time 2, 2 missed one test session,
removing the two siblings and placing the cross-over child in and 16 moved or crossed over between Time 3 and Time 4. 11
the experimental group (“intent-to-treat”) had no meaningfully of these were in Montessori and 5 were control children. The
effect on results. For example, the ANCOVA on Time 4 control children who were lost had all moved; this lost subset of
academic achievement strengthens slightly when these changes control children had performed significantly lower in academic
are made, from F(2,119) = 7.24, p = 0.008, η2p = 0.06 to achievement at earlier time points than the control children
F(2,117) = 9.58, p = 0.002, η2p = 0.08. For philosophical who did not move. The Montessori children who were lost at
reasons (such as grouping participants according to the treatment Time 4 did not significantly differ from those who remained
actually received) the study’s original group assignment was in the study. Thus attrition patterns bias Time 4 results toward
retained. better outcomes for the control sample. For the variables reported
here and the remaining children, 2.6% of data is missing due
Schools to experimenter error, child non-compliance, or interruptions in
Control schools testing.
Forty-three control children attended the same schools for the Of the 33 children who were admitted but excluded from
duration of their time in the study; 26 made one school switch, the study, 23 children contributed insufficient data; 4 of these
and 1 switched schools twice. At the beginning of the study, the (2 Montessori) were lost between Times 1 and 2 and 19
71 control children were in 51 schools; most of those schools (9 Montessori) were lost between Times 2 and 3. The children
had 1 child, some had 2–3, and one had 4. Over the course who were lost did not differ from other children in terms
of the entire study (6 school years), control children were at of parent education, parent income, ethnicity, or gender. The
71 different schools. (Children were tracked at the school, not decision not to include these children was based on a preference
the classroom level). Thirty of the 71 schools were publicly for actual over imputed data. The other 10 excluded children
funded (15 magnet including for example Reggio, Arts, and (6 Montessori) had insufficient English (n = 5), speech delay
Environmental Science schools; 8 conventional public schools; (n = 3), or other learning disabilities (n = 2).
and 7 Head Start programs) and 41 were private schools.
Thirty-two of the schools attended by control children were Procedure
in Hartford city (including West Hartford, which is wealthier All parents provided written informed consent. Testing was
with an average household income of $120,000) and 39 were conducted one-on-one, usually in the child’s school, but in
in the outlying suburbs. Public early childhood programs in a few cases in a public library due to lack of school
Connecticut must (1) satisfy the NAEYC accreditation standards cooperation. Ten trained research assistants tested children
and (2) be a member of the state’s early childhood professional over the course of the study (eight graduate students and
registry. Connecticut requires an Early Childhood Teaching two project coordinators). Tasks were administered in a fixed
Credential that entails either (1) being a graduate of an approved order chosen to vary formats for engaging children: Theory of
higher education program or (2) another higher education Mind, Letter-Word, Alternate Uses, Design Copy, Puzzle Part
degree, teaching experience, and 12 credits in early childhood 1, Math, Head Toes Knees Shoulders, Social Problem-Solving,
education. Picture Vocabulary, Preference Questionnaire, Puzzle Part 2.
Testing was done simultaneously at Montessori and control
Montessori schools schools so that test time would not be confounded with school
One of the Montessori schools was the first public Montessori type.
school in Connecticut, established in 1994. The other one Participants were administered the same tasks at all test points,
opened in 2008. During the study years both Montessori schools except the Preferences Questionnaire and the Alternate Uses
were recognized by the Association Montessori Internationale creativity task, which were added in the spring of 2011, so these
(AMI) for their strict fidelity to original principles. One school tasks are missing at Time 1 from the 29 participants who enrolled
had 5 classrooms and the other had 6 classrooms serving 27 in 2010.
three- to six-year-olds. One school also included students to 6th On some tasks, having exactly the same items at different test
grade and the other to 8th grade; each had about 350 children in points would threaten validity. For these tasks there were four sets
total. The teachers all had AMI training, for which a BA/BS degree of materials, administered on a rotating basis.

Academic Ability Executive Function

Children’s academic ability was assessed using the Woodcock– Executive Function was assessed with two tasks. For
Johnson IIIR Tests of Achievement according to the instructions Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders (Ponitz et al., 2009), children
in the manual (Woodcock et al., 2001). Because there were were first asked to touch their head, then to touch their toes.
no age differences across samples, raw scores were used for Children were then told that they were playing an “opposite
all Woodcock–Johnson tests. The Picture Vocabulary subtest game” in which they must touch the opposite part of the body
assessed vocabulary, and the Letter-Word subtest assessed than the experimenter said. Children were then administered 10
reading. Because the Montessori schools both taught cursive items, each scored 0–2, with 0 indicating the child followed the
letters, the printed letters in the earlier items on the Letter- command literally, 1 meaning the child touched the incorrect
Word subscale were overlaid with cursive letters when testing body part first and then corrected themselves without prompting,
Montessori students. Ordinary print letters were retained from and 2 meaning the child touched the correct (opposite) body
the point when the test changes from letter to word identification. part. If a child scored 10 points or more on the first 10 items, a
Early mathematical achievement was measured with the Applied second series of 10 items was administered which included knees
Problems subtest, followed by the Calculation subtest if children and shoulders; the maximum points a child could earn was 40.
scored 19 points or higher. These scores were summed for a Second, the Design Copy subtest from the Visuospatial
Math score. The Math, Letter-Word, and Picture Vocabulary Processing section of the NEPSY-II was administered and scored
score loaded on a common factor (see Appendix) and were highly according to the manual (Korkman et al., 2007). Children were
correlated (rs > 0.80), so to reduce the number of comparisons shown a paper with a 4 × 4 grid with four figures across the
in the study, these scores were combined (by adding Z-scores) top and third rows. The first figure was a vertical line; the
for an overall Academic Achievement measure (e.g., Lipsey et al., experimenter showed children how to copy the line in the box
2017). below it (first box, second row), saying (for 3- and 4-year-olds),
“See this line? I will draw one here. Now you draw one here,”
Theory of Mind handing the child the pencil and pointing to the second figure
We used four tasks from the Theory of Mind Scale (Wellman (a horizontal line) and the box below it. For 5-year-olds, and
and Liu, 2004) omitting the lowest level (Diverse Desires) for for the remaining items, the experimenter simply pointed to
brevity since 3-year-olds typically pass this level. As an example, the top figure then the blank box below it, saying, “Copy
in the Knowledge Access task, children were shown what was this one here.” This continued for up to 16 figures until a
hidden in the drawer of a doll-house-sized bureau, and then child failed to successfully copy three figures consecutively. An
shown a doll who they were told had not seen inside the independent coder coded a randomly selected subset of children
drawer. They were asked if the doll knew what was inside at each test period, and interrater reliabilities across the two
the drawer, and if the doll had seen inside the drawer; both coders were excellent: rs = 0.98 (32 children at Time 1); 0.96
answers had to be correct for a child to be given credit. Children (22 children at Time 2); 0.95 (14 children at Time 3); 0.90
were given Knowledge Access first, followed by Contents False (22 children at Time 4).
Belief, Diverse Beliefs, and Hidden Emotion, for final scores of
0–4. The contents, dolls, and doll names changed for each test Mastery Orientation
session. For example, for contents false-belief task, one year the The puzzle task (modified from Smiley and Dweck, 1994)
child saw a Band-Aid box with crayons inside, another year designed to test mastery orientation was given in two parts.
a raisin box with buttons inside, another year a Crayons box First, children were given a fairly easy puzzle for their age, along
with rubber bands inside, and another year a Cheerios box with a picture of what the completed puzzle should look like.
with beads inside. Since children entered the study for four The picture was turned over while children solved the puzzle.
consecutive years, each material set came first for a portion of the After 2 min or when children completed the puzzle (whichever
sample. occurred first), they were given a much more difficult puzzle
to solve and its completed picture which was then turned over.
Social Problem Solving However, in this puzzle there were also pieces that had been
One object acquisition story from Rubin’s Social Problem-Solving switched with a similar puzzle, rendering the puzzle unsolvable.
Test - Revised was administered (Rubin, 1988) each year. In Children were again given 2 min to work on the puzzle. Then
these stories, children were shown two other preschoolers, one they completed several other tasks, and finally the experimenter
of whom had a coveted resource like a swing and had had it brought out both puzzles again, told children that they had some
for a “long, long time” and the other of whom wanted that extra time, and asked which one they wanted to work on and why;
resource. Children were asked what the second child could do children could opt for neither or the easier puzzle (scored 0), or
or say to get the resource, what else they could do or say, and the more difficult puzzle (scored 1).
what the child him- or herself would do or say. Children’s use of
strategies considering fairness and justice for both parties were School Enjoyment: Preference Questionnaire
coded. Although there is no limit to the number of such solutions A questionnaire was developed to assess children’s enjoyment
a child might give, in reality the range was 0–3 at all four test of academic (school and reading) and leisure (media and play)
points. Interrater reliability on 20% of all responses across all tasks; four filler questions were included as well. There were
years was 0.99. four questions about each of the focal topics, and children rated

their enjoyment by pointing to a sad, neutral, or happy face. T where N is the sample size and T is the total number of
These responses were coded as 0, 1, or 2, and added together. measurement occasions); 3 is a T × q factor loading matrix
Since young children often give the highest possible ratings on determining the shape of growth trajectories, bi is a q × 1
such scales (Ladd et al., 2000), to get variability, responses at vector of random effects, and ei is a vector of intraindividual
the end of each school year (so they had experience with the measurement errors. The vector of random effects bi varies for
school tasks) were summed, and liking for academic tasks was each individual, and its mean, representing the fixed effects, can
subtracted from liking of recreational tasks, reflecting how much be interpreted by a function of covariates Xi with parameters
more each child liked recreational than scholastic activities across β. The residual vector ui represents the random component
preschool. of bi .
We use maximum likelihood estimation methods to fit the
Creativity model. Missing values are believed to be missing completely
Alternative Uses was used to assess creativity (Guilford and at random (MCAR) or missing at random (MAR). Thus, Full
Christensen, 1973). First, as a warm-up, children were shown a Information Maximum Likelihood method (FIML) is applied to
photograph of an object (e.g., a pencil) and the experimenter said, deal with missing data.
“See this? This is a pencil. Can you tell me as many different Data were not nested in control classrooms for the obvious
things that you can think of that you can do, play or make reason that most control schools had only one child, and
with this?” If children made no reply in 10 s, the experimenter children’s classrooms and teachers were not tracked because
prompted with one use. The first of two test items was presented they were not the focus of this study. Data were also not
in the same way (“See this? This is a bucket. . .”). Responses were nested within Montessori classrooms, and the reason for this
recorded for 1 min, with the experimenter prompting “What might be less obvious: Every year the 11 Montessori classrooms
else?” If a child was producing responses and then appeared to were differently constituted. First, peers changed: Always, at
run out of ideas (did not respond for a few seconds), the second least 33% of children turned over as the oldest group of 9
item was shown and the same process repeated. For both test moved on and a new group of 9 three-year-olds entered. In
items the total time during which responses counted was 2 min; addition, several teachers and assistants turned over at some
responses given after 2 min were not included. point during the study (although this was not closely tracked,
Each intelligible response was scored as standard or non- at least three teachers at one school turned over), rendering
standard. Categories were exclusive. For example, a standard use different teacher experiences for each wave of children entering
for a towel would be to wipe one’s body, and a non-standard a given physical class (some had teacher A for 3 years, others
use would be to place it over one’s head to pretend that one for 2, others for 1, and others did not have teacher A at
is a ghost. Analyses were conducted on the number of non- all). For this reason, treating children who entered a given
standard uses each child gave, collapsed across both items at classroom in 2010 and those who entered that classroom in
each assessment. The actual range of responses was 0 to 5 2013 as being in the same class (as a nested design would
total non-standard uses. Two coders independently coded a do) would not make sense; they had no overlap in peers,
randomly selected subset of the data (ns below). Reliability was and many had different teachers as well. If we treated each
r = 0.80 on 16 children who were double-coded at Time 1; entering year as different classrooms, we would have many tiny
0.73 (45 children at Time 2); 0.79 (46 children at Time 3); 0.82 groups (1.6 children per nested group on average, given the
(40 children at Time 4). average of 6.36 children per classroom entering over 4 years).
Nesting Montessori children in classrooms therefore did not
Statistical Analyses make sense. Analyses comparing results at the two Montessori
Some analyses reported here employed growth curve modeling, schools revealed no school differences.
one of the most frequently used analytic techniques for
longitudinal data analysis with repeated measures. Growth Time 1 Equivalence
curve modeling can directly analyze intraindividual change over T-tests were done on all results to determine whether the samples
time and interindividual differences in intraindividual change differed already at their initial test (Time 1), conducted at some
(McArdle and Nesselroade, 2014). Growth curve analysis obtains point during their first 3 months of school. The p-values exceeded
a description of the mean growth in a population over a specific 0.05 for all tests, indicating that the samples were equivalent at the
period of time. Individual variations around the mean growth start of the study.
curve are due to random effects and intraindividual measurement The groups were slightly (although not significantly)
errors. different in academic achievement at the first test point.
A typical growth curve model can be expressed as Since the children were randomly assigned to Montessori or
the waitlist, it seems most likely that these small differences
yı =3bi + ei , were due to their respective school programs beginning
to have an effect between the time of school entry and
bi = f(β, X i ) + ui , the initial test point (which was mid-December for some
children, 3 months into the school year). This is further
0
where yi = (yi1 , yi2 , ..., yiT ) is a T × 1 vector and yij is an supported by lack of group differences in all the demographic
observation for individual i at time j (i = 1, ..., T; j = 1, ..., variables.

FIGURE 1 | Correlation Table for Academic Achievement, Theory of Mind, and Executive Function across four time points. These variables were selected because
their interrelations are of significant interest in preschool research. In this graphic representation, all squares are red because all correlations were positive. The
shading legend is on the right. Darker colors (as well as larger squares) represent stronger correlations.
RESULTS Overall Findings: Montessori vs.

Business-As-Usual
Here we first explain how data were reduced, then discuss the Academic Achievement
results showing that Montessori preschool elevated performance Although equal at the start of school, the Montessori group
overall for the whole sample. We next discuss results showing advanced at a higher rate across the study years, as illustrated in
that Montessori equalized performance of subgroups by raising Figure 2; 1B = 0.13 (SE = 0.067), p < 0.05. This initial analysis
the typically lower-performing subgroups towards the level of did not control for demographic variables because there were no
the higher-performing subgroups. We end with a comparison differences, as would be expected given random assignment, but
of public Montessori with public and private non-Montessori to confirm this a second growth model was created controlling
schools. for gender, household income, and Time 1 executive function.
This confirmed that while both groups were equal at intercept in
Data Reduction academic achievement, Montessori predicted a steeper slope of
The Woodcock-Johnson scores loaded on a single factor and were growth, whereas none of the control variables predicted a steeper
significantly intercorrelated within each time point (rs > 0.80), slope in the overall sample. The result from the growth curve
so were converted to Z-scores and summed for an Academic analysis was confirmed by an ANCOVA on Time 4 academic
Achievement score at each test point. The Copy Design and achievement, controlling for academic achievement at Time 1,
Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders task also loaded on a single factor F(2,119) = 7.24, p = 0.008, η2p = 0.06. Independent samples
and were also significantly correlated (r = 0.66) so were converted t-tests showed that the groups were not yet different at Time 1 or
to Z-scores and summed for each test point. Figure 1 shows Time 2, and that significant differences in academic achievement
the correlations across the composite variables and Theory of had emerged by the last two time points (approximately 4 and
Mind across time points, and the Appendix describes the factor 5 years of age): t(136) = 2.10, p = 0.04, Cohen’s d = 0.36, and
analysis. t(122) = 2.26, p = 0.03, Cohen’s d = 0.41, respectively.

FIGURE 2 | Academic achievement across preschool by school type. The figure shows significantly greater growth in academic achievement across preschool for
children enrolled in Montessori preschool (dashed blue lines, n = 70) than waitlisted controls (dotted black lines, n = 71). Groups were statistically equivalent at Time
1 (the non-significant difference at Time 1 is likely due the Time 1 tests occurring into mid-December, thus school programs could already have made a difference)
and Time 2 (late in the spring of their 1st year in preschool) and significantly different by the end of their 2nd and 3rd years in preschool (Times 3 and 4).
Dashed/dotted lines represent actual data and solid lines represent fitted linear growth curves. Standard error bars are shown.
Theory of Mind executive function controlling for Time 1 only showed a trend
Although children’s scores were equal at the initial test, a linear toward a difference, with Montessori children scoring more
growth curve model showed that Montessori children had a highly: F(2,118) = 3.00, p = 0.09, η2p = 0.03. Only at Time 3
significantly steeper rate of growth across the preschool years, was the difference significant, t(135) = 2.09, p = 0.04, Cohen’s
1B = 0.10 (SE = 0.04), p < 0.05. This result remained in a d = 0.35. Evidence that Montessori magnet preschools lead
second growth curve model that controlled for age, household to better executive function as compared to that developed
income, and Time 1 Executive Function. Using a different by control children attending other preschools is not strong
analytic approach, an ANCOVA on Time 4 Theory of Mind here.
scores controlling for Time 1 scores also showed a significant
difference favoring the Montessori group, F(2,115) = 4.47 Mastery Orientation
p = 0.04, η2p = 0.04. Scores were examined at each time point. At the first two time points, there were no group differences:
For Times 1 and 2 the two groups were not different. At Time 3, 37 of 70 Montessori (53%) and 35 of 71 control children
the difference was significant, t(135) = 2.09, p = 0.04, Cohen’s (49%) chose to try a difficult puzzle again on one or both
d = 0.36, and at the end of kindergarten (Time 4), the difference occasions (Fisher’s Exact test, p = 0.74). By the time children
was a trend, t(122) = 1.74, p = 0.08, Cohen’s d = 0.32. These were 4 and 5, at Times 3 and 4, school program effects were
results show that social cognition developed more rapidly in significant, with Fisher’s Exact test showing more Montessori
children attending Montessori schools. children made the mastery choice (45 of 69 or 65%) than
did control children (33 of 71 or 47%), p = 0.03, two-tailed.
Social Problem Solving Thus, children who were randomly assigned to a Montessori
Children in the two samples were equivalent throughout the program were more likely to have a growth mindset by the latter
study with respect to their social problem-solving skills; the half of their preschool years. Children’s explanations for their
average number of justice-related responses ranged from 0.24 to choices were consistent with the underlying orientation. Easy
0.97 across the 4 time points. An ANCOVA on Time 4 Social puzzle choosers said things like, “Because it’s easier,” whereas
Problem Solving controlling for Time 1 comparing Montessori difficult puzzle choosers said things like, “Because I think I
and control samples was non-significant F(1,117) = 0.20 can do it.”
p = 0.66, η2p = 0.002, nor was the group difference significant
at any time point with independent samples t-tests. School Enjoyment
An ANOVA showed that the Montessori children were relatively
Executive Function more positive about school-related activities than were the
Linear growth curve analyses did not indicate differences in control children, F(1,116) = 5.69 p = 0.02, η2p = 0.05
the growth of executive function. An ANCOVA on Time 4 (see Figure 3). This suggests that the Montessori children’s

FIGURE 3 | Enjoyment of recreational (left panel) and academic (right panel) activities across preschool. Montessori children (n = 55, blue beans, on right side of
each panel) were relatively more favorable to academic tasks than control children (n = 63, gray beans). Dots represent children, bars represent means, and shaded
areas represent 95% confidence intervals.
achievement gains were not at the expense of their enjoying correlation between academic achievement and household
school. income across the entire study was 0.23, whereas in the
control sample it was twice that: 0.46. Using the Fisher
Creativity transformation, this difference in correlations was significant,
Children in the two samples were equivalent throughout the Z = 2.46, p = 0.01. To further examine this, 1000 bootstrapped
study with respect to their creativity; average non-standard samples were generated; the 95% bootstrap confidence intervals
uses scores ranged from 0.31 to 1.55 across the 4 time points. of 1r was (0.04, 0.39), supporting that the correlations between
An ANCOVA on Time 4 Creativity controlling for Time 1 income and academic achievement in the two samples are
Creativity comparing Montessori and control samples was non- significantly different. The smaller correlation among Montessori
significant F(1,94) = 0.96 p = 0.33, η2p = 0.01, nor was the group children might be a simple function of their being in
difference significant at any time point with independent samples magnet schools, since this is in essence the point of magnet
t-tests. schools [although their success at this is mixed (Ballou,
2009)]. However, for the subgroup of 15 control children
Comparison of Subgroups in Montessori who were at other magnet schools, the correlation between
vs. Business-As-Usual Schools academic achievement and household income was even stronger,
We examined two sets of subgroups. First, we looked at suggesting the mitigated income-achievement correlation for
the association of achievement with household income in Montessori children is not merely due to their being in magnet
Montessori vs. control schools. Because this achievement gap schools.
has been of considerable interest in the country historically, How strong the gains in academic achievement were among
we present several analyses of this issue, before examining just the lower income children is also of interest, because
the influence of different levels of executive function in each of the income achievement gap. Although the income range
sample. was very broad, there was not a sufficiently large subsample
to only examine those living below the poverty line, so
Levels of Achievement for Children of Different instead we examined the study subsample with a household
Income Levels income below the median split. For this lower income half of
Income is typically associated with school achievement. This the sample (n = 67), mean household income was $32,627;
was the case in the control sample, as shown in the SD = 18,443; the federal poverty line for a family of 4
right hand side of Figure 4 using data from the final test in Connecticut was $24,600. At Time 1, an ANCOVA on
point (Time 4). The left hand side shows this relation for academic achievement controlling for age (because there was a
the Montessori sample. Among children in Montessori, the slight age difference in the subsamples), showed no difference

FIGURE 4 | Relation between academic achievement and household income in Montessori and control children at the end of the kindergarten year. The relation is
significantly smaller in Montessori children (n = 58, left panel) than in control children (n = 66, right panel).
between the Montessori and control lower income subsamples, Outcomes for Children with Different Levels of
whereas by Time 4 the lower income Montessori subsample Executive Function
had significantly higher academic achievement than the lower Second, we examined the predictive power of executive function
income control subsample, F(1,62) = 6.86, p = 0.01, η2p = 0.10; for achievement. For both Montessori and control children,
see Figure 5. This result also held when controlling for higher executive function predicted academic achievement
Time 1 academic achievement: F(1,61) = 7.25, p = 0.009, at Time 1 (the intercept). In the control sample, as expected
η2p = 0.11. from many studies, executive function also predicted the
Furthermore, Montessori education greatly reduced the slope of academic achievement in the latent growth curve
achievement gap across the preschool years. A series of four model, 1B = −0.067, SE = 0.03, p = 0.05. By contrast,
t-tests compared the lower income Montessori children with initial levels of executive function had no influence on the
the higher income control children at each time point. For slope of academic achievement for children in the Montessori
the higher income half of the sample (n = 74, including 7 at programs, 1B = 0.009, SE = 0.03, p = 0.76. Thus, in terms
the median income of 70,000), mean household income was of academic outcomes, in Montessori classrooms children
$105,804; SD = 33,123. The higher income control children with low executive function do as well as children with high
outperformed lower income Montessori children at Times 1 and executive function. In other words, special supplementary
2, t(64) = 2.47, p = 0.02, Cohen’s d = 0.61 and t(61) = 2.43, curricula targeting executive function are not needed to
p = 0.02, Cohen’s d = 0.61, respectively. At Time 3, the difference equalize achievement outcomes for children in Montessori
was reduced by a third in terms of effect size and was no programs; academic achievement was higher overall,
longer significant, t(62) = 1.59, p = 0.12, Cohen’s d = 0.40, and children with lower executive function were not at a
and by the end of kindergarten (Time 4), the difference was disadvantage.
reduced by yet another third, t(62) = 1.59, p = 0.41, Cohen’s
d = 0.21. Thus, the effect size of the income achievement gap Montessori vs. Public or Private
went from 3/5 of a standard deviation at age 3, to 2/5 at age
4, and finally to 1/5 at the end of the 3rd year in Montessori.
Business-As-Usual
Because control children were at both private and publically
Within the Montessori sample, the same series of tests showed
funded schools, we examined how Montessori children compared
trending (p = 0.06 at Time 1) or significant income-group
to both groups on academic achievement, theory of mind, and
differences in academic achievement at the first three time points
executive function. Controlling for academic achievement at the
but not at the last one, t(56) = 1.41, p = 0.16, although the
first time point, there was a significant school type effect on
difference was still a third of a standard deviation in size, Cohen’s academic achievement at the final time point, F(2,122) = 3.94,
d = 0.37. By contrast, within the control sample, the higher p = 0.022, η2p = 0.06. Post hoc tests showed a significant mean
income subgroup performed a full standard deviation better difference (favoring Montessori, for all results described here)
than the lower income subgroup, Cohen’s d = 0.98. The higher between public Montessori and public control schools (p = 0.012)
income Montessori children were the highest performers in and a trend between public Montessori and private control
the study by the end of kindergarten (Time 4, see Figure 5), schools (p = 0.055). There was no difference between public
but the lower-income children were doing much better in and private control schools (p = 0.42). For theory of mind, the
Montessori classrooms than in control schools by this last time same analyses indicated a group difference, F(2,114) = 4.30,
point. p = 0.016, η2p = 0.07, which post hoc tests revealed was

FIGURE 5 | Academic achievement across four time points by school condition and income group. Although equal to the lower income control children at Time 1,
by Time 4 the lower income children in Montessori showed a strong positive trajectory towards closing the achievement gap with the higher income children in
control and Montessori schools. Standard error bars are shown.
both between public Montessori and public control schools typically do less well more equal. First, academic performance
(p = 0.004) and public and private control schools (favoring of children in Montessori programs was significantly stronger
private, p = 0.048), but not between public Montessori and over time. They performed slightly (but not significantly) better
private control schools (p = 0.40). Executive function at the at the first time point, perhaps because children had on average
final time point controlling for the first time point approached almost 2 months of school program experience at the first test,
a trend on the omnibus test F(2,117) = 2.27, p = 0.11, with some children having a full 3.5 months. By the third and
η2p = 0.04 attributable to a significant difference in growth fourth time point, the differences in academic achievement were
of children in public Montessori vs. in public control schools significant.
(p = 0.04). Furthermore, Montessori education made substantial
headway in reducing the income gap in achievement across the
preschool years. Whereas lower income control children
DISCUSSION were performing a full standard deviation lower than
higher income control children by the end of preschool,
Assisting young children’s development is an essential societal the difference in income groups in Montessori was just
task; the human brain undergoes tremendous development in a third of a standard deviation. Statistically, the lower
the early school years, setting in place patterns that predict income Montessori children did not differ from the higher
life trajectories (Moffitt et al., 2011). Yet in the United States, income children in either school group by the fourth
the methods by which we try to help young children time point. In keeping with this, the income-achievement
oscillate between didactic academic and pure discovery learning correlation was significantly smaller for children in Montessori
approaches, neither of which supports whole-child development than for children in the control group. This is a very
in optimal ways (Fisher et al., 2011). Montessori education important and impressive finding in our national search
takes a different, whole-child approach and could feasibly be for ways to better help children born at an economic
implemented at scale, but there have been no strong studies of disadvantage.
its outcomes. Importantly, the higher achievement in Montessori was not
Taking advantage of a computerized random lottery for at the expense of social skills or of liking school. Children who
placement in two Montessori magnet preschools, this study had by lottery ended up in Montessori programs performed
compared 70 preschool-aged children who attended Montessori better on tests of social cognition, were more mastery oriented,
with 71 who did not. This is to our knowledge the first study and expressed more liking of academic tasks relative to
spanning three years of Montessori education, and the second how much they liked recreational tasks. All these variables
Montessori study to use a lottery-loser control design; the present have predicted better outcomes in other studies, cited earlier.
study had a much larger sample size, and used new measures. Montessori children fared equally well on tests of social problem
Montessori education elevated all children’s performance on solving and creativity, and had better executive function at
several measures, and made the performance of groups that age 4.

Finally, many studies have shown better academic and Peterson, 2000). These advantages are believed to stem from
life outcomes for children with higher executive function or the need to consider others’ mental states during conflicts that
self-control. While for the control children in this study as arise more often with similar-aged siblings or peers (Lillard and
well, executive function predicted academic achievement, this Eisen, 2017). A Montessori environment might present even
was not the case for children in Montessori. In Montessori more conflict than a typical preschool classroom, because there
classrooms, having lower or higher executive function did not is only one of each type of Montessori material—one set of
matter for achievement; children with lower executive function “Pink Tower” blocks, and one set of Musical Bells, for example.
performed as well as children with higher executive function This scarcity in the context of 3-year age groupings might
in Montessori on academic achievement, which is impressive create challenges that lead to faster development in theory of
given that academic achievement in the Montessori sample was mind. Alternatively, Dr. Montessori noted personality changes
higher overall. Next we speculate on some possible reasons for that accompanied deep concentration on work in preschool
these results, considering first intrinsic program differences in classrooms; one of these changes was to become more socially
outcomes, followed by the possibility that Montessori teachers are competent (Montessori, 1917/1965), which is associated with
superior. theory of mind; note, however, that the more direct measure
of social competence (Social Problem Solving) did not show
Academic Achievement differences in this study.
Children in Montessori programs excelled in academic
achievement. The Montessori materials and presentations Mastery Orientation
are one possible reason. The materials capitalize on the Children in Montessori programs were more mastery oriented
embodiment of cognition, for example having children trace by ages 4 and 5 than were children in the control sample.
letters as they say the letter sounds, and match cards with words One possible reason for this is the lack of extrinsic rewards in
to small objects. Ample research suggests that this is a more Montessori programs. The reward systems used in conventional
effective way to learn than sitting and listening (Lillard, 2017) school programs tend to lead to ability-oriented theories
as children often do in conventional preschool environments about oneself (Ames, 1992), which tend to go along with
(Bassok et al., 2016). Furthermore, the content via which performance goals. People with performance goals tend to
educational topics are approached in Montessori might be choose easier tasks that will make them look good (Dweck,
helpful. For example, in Montessori environments, children 1999). Montessori programs encourage repetition of exercises
approach math through spatial learning, when Red Rods that to the point of mastery, and feedback comes from the
systematically vary in length are transformed into Number materials rather than a teacher. These differences might
Rods that name alternately colored segments with unit numbers explain the findings obtained here with regard to mastery
(Montessori, 1914/1965, 1994b). The purpose of mathematics orientation.
is to measure the physical world, and spatial and math skills
are correlated (Verdine et al., 2017). Conventional education Liking School Enjoyment
typically begins math education with counting discrete objects; Although the children in this study all really liked recreational
perhaps starting with spatial relations as is done in Montessori is activities like watching television and movies and playing,
more helpful. In addition, the Montessori curricula and materials children in Montessori showed relatively more liking of academic
are very logical and very interesting (e.g., Montessori, 2016), tasks like reading and getting lessons from a teacher. One
and this could also be a reason for the difference. Another possible reason for this is that children have choices about
intrinsic program difference that could result in better learning how they spent their time in Montessori; such choice is
outcomes is order. The Montessori environment and materials increasingly rare in preschool programs generally (Bassok
are also highly ordered, and more orderly environments are et al., 2016). People are generally happier when they have
also associated with better cognitive and academic outcomes choices, which provide a sense of self-determination (Deci
(Fisher et al., 2014). These are just a few of many possible reasons and Ryan, 2011). Other possible reasons for more school
for the stronger academic outcomes for children in Montessori liking dovetail with those given for achievement and mastery
classrooms. orientation.
Theory of Mind Executive Function

This study aligns with two prior studies in showing that Unlike some other studies (Lillard and Else-Quest, 2006; Lillard,
children in authentic (in this case, AMI-recognized) Montessori 2012; Kayılı, 2016), this study did not show significantly
environments perform better on theory of mind than other stronger development of executive function overall for children
children (Lillard and Else-Quest, 2006; Lillard, 2012). One in Montessori; their executive function was significantly higher
possible reason for this is that Montessori classrooms combine only at age 4. It might be that children whose parents enroll
children of three ages. In China, under the one-child policy, them in lottery magnets are different; this is the first study of
children in multi-age classrooms did better on theory of mind magnet Montessori preschools. Alternatively, it might be that
tests than children in single-age classrooms (Wang and Su, conventional preschools are improving in these areas because
2009). Other studies have shown that children with more older of social-emotional learning programs (Ursache et al., 2012).
siblings also do better on theory of mind (Ruffman et al., 1998; Further research is needed to tease apart these possibilities.

The finding concerning executive function and prediction of study, the training center courses were usually undersubscribed,
academic achievement is notable. Many studies have shown that so the center took virtually all applicants (Hall, personal
executive function in the early school years predicts academic communication, June, 2017). In addition, virtually all those who
achievement (Blair and Razza, 2007; Duncan et al., 2007; Fuhs take the 9-month course are awarded a diploma. However,
et al., 2014; Cameron et al., 2015), likely because in order for it is feasible that people who are attracted to Montessori
children to learn in conventional school they need to behave teacher training interact differently with children, and this
in ways that exercise executive function: They need to sit difference could be responsible for the results obtained. Other
still, listen, follow directions, and inhibit engaging in other studies have shown non-trivial teacher effects at preschool.
activities. But children across the full range of executive function For example, a large study of prekindergarten classrooms in
who were in Montessori classrooms grew equally in academic states that support pre-K (as does Connecticut) indicated two
achievement, and overall the Montessori children’s level of teacher variables that are most predictive of child achievement
academic achievement was higher than that of controls. This (Mashburn et al., 2008): (1) teacher emotional support, which
suggests that having low executive function is not a disadvantage predicts social outcomes and (2) teacher instructional support
for children in this type of school program. Whether this (asking high-level questions, scaffolding children’s thinking),
translates to executive function being less predictive of later which supports academic outcomes. It is possible that the
(such as Elementary school) outcomes for children who attended Montessori teachers were higher on these variables even prior
Montessori preschool is topic for further research. to their Montessori teacher training. Further research should
One possible reason why executive function was not predictive examine this, perhaps through questionnaires given to people
of outcomes within the Montessori preschool program is that commencing Montessori vs. conventional teacher education
Montessori is a form of differentiated instruction. Children are programs.
not all treated alike; a child who needs more structure can
be given that by the teacher. For example, a child who has Teacher Training Causing Teacher Differences
not developed an ability to make constructive choices can be Second, the teacher training for Montessori might create better
given limited, or even no choice, by the teacher, whereas a teachers. In terms of time and course intensity, the AMI
child who makes good choices (for example, chooses challenging training seems comparable to the training required for an early
work) is allowed to make their own choices. Closer examination childhood teaching certificate. It involves 9 months of lectures
of in-classroom processes, noting whether teachers do in fact and practice teaching, creation of a set of notes explaining
scaffold lower executive function more effectively in Montessori Montessori theory and curriculum, and a final examination.
programs, would shed light on this. The AMI “professors”—the people who teach the teacher-
One might ask whether executive function near the time of trainees—typically had at least 5 years as an AMI-certified
school entry not predicting academic achievement is problematic. classroom teacher followed by about 7 years of apprenticeship
It does not seem so, since executive function still developed to another teacher trainer, so they are also highly trained.
similarly in both groups and academic achievement was higher However, one difference to early childhood education is
overall in the non-predictive group (Montessori). that in Montessori teacher training courses, one focuses on
just one system and theory (Cossentino, 2005). By contrast,
Montessori Teachers teachers in conventional teacher education programs typically
In addition to intrinsic program differences, another possible learn many theories and methods. Whether learning a single
reason for better Montessori outcomes is that Montessori theory or multiple ones creates better teachers is an empirical
teachers might be better teachers; if so, perhaps children in their question.
classrooms would excel regardless of what educational program Another possibility, which also needs to be studied, is that
the teachers implemented. The teachers were not the focus of Montessori teacher training changes teachers, perhaps by making
study here, but future research should consider this possibility. them more sensitively responsive or higher in instructional
It is notable that at one of the two schools, three of six teachers support. If this is the case, then Montessori teachers are different
had been teaching in a conventional way prior to 2008, and but for a reason that is generic to Montessori education.
opted for retraining when the school adopted a Montessori Throughout Dr. Montessori’s books, a warm and loving attitude
program. to children is expressed, and Montessori teachers are expected
Considering the possibility that the study is revealing teacher to come to embody this attitude (Lillard, 2017). In addition,
rather than program effects, we note two points at which the Montessori teachers adopt high expectations of children, for
Montessori teachers might have become better teachers: prior to example expecting them to achieve independence in ways
their teacher training, or during (and as a result of) the teacher that people rarely expect at least in American culture today.
training. Even before age 3, Montessori children are expected to set
the table, prepare a meal, and clean up, for example. Five-
Possible Pre-existing Differences in Teachers year-olds multiply and divide 4-digit numbers [see Figure 6;
First, one might ask whether the standards for entering a Montessori (2016) describes how this is achieved in high-
program to be a Montessori teacher are higher. Most of fidelity Montessori classrooms], and carry out other complex
the Montessori teachers in this study trained at the AMI tasks on their own. The combination of warmth, trust, and
teacher training center in Hartford. Up to the time of this high expectations that is imparted to teachers during the

probably also add value. Two studies speak to this issue, both
capitalizing on the fact that many Montessori classrooms do
not offer exclusively Montessori materials. In one study, among
14 Montessori classrooms, children advanced more across a
school year in classrooms that offered only Montessori materials
than in “Montessori” classrooms that mixed in conventional
materials like commercial puzzles (Lillard, 2012). In another
study, conventional materials were removed midyear from
two of three Montessori classrooms, and children in those
two classrooms experienced significantly greater gains in the
subsequent 4 months than children in the third classroom
(Lillard and Heise, 2016). Because all the Montessori teachers
in these studies were Montessori-trained, these studies suggest
there might be something in the Montessori materials and
the methods with which they are used that allow for steeper
growth.
Limitations
A major strength of this study is also a major limitation:
It is based on a lottery for admission to two oversubscribed
schools. Not all lottery entrants could be located (some had
moved and left no forwarding address) and not all who were
contacted agreed to enroll. School lottery entrants are not
representative of all children, and oversubscribed schools differ
from undersubscribed ones. In the real world, lottery designs are
often the best available; longitudinal lottery studies are supreme.
However, a lottery study is not as good as a true randomized
control trial, where everyone is randomly assigned and is made
FIGURE 6 | Two children working with Montessori decimal materials, with
to stay in their assigned group.
which preschool children perform multiplication and division of 4-digit
numbers. Photograph by Laura Joyce-Hubbard, provided by courtesy of
Another major strength that is also a limitation is that
Forest Bluff School. the study used high fidelity Montessori schools. Montessori
outcomes appear to depend on the quality of the Montessori
program (Lillard, 2012); outcomes at lower fidelity Montessori
Montessori teacher training might change them in ways schools might not be the same. The Montessori programs in
that would make their students have better outcomes even this study were recognized by the AMI, and we do not know if
if the teachers did not go on to implement a Montessori unrecognized Montessori schools, or ones associated with other
curriculum. Montessori organizations and teacher trainings, or even other
Various means should be used in future studies to look AMI Montessori schools, would have similar outcomes. Another
at the degree to which teachers might be responsible for limitation is that the Montessori and control schools vary on
better outcomes in Montessori education. First, one could many dimensions, and it is unclear whether specific dimensions
examine attitudes toward and interactions with children prior might have contributed to outcomes, or whether Montessori
to, during, and following teacher education courses, comparing programs must be fully implemented to have benefits. This study
those in Montessori and conventional training, to see how each does suggest that very rigorous Montessori preschool programs
type of teacher training changes people. Second, measures of significantly affect outcomes relative to business as usual, but less
teacher–child interaction could be used in studies like this, rigorous Montessori programs might not. Another limitation is
and entered as separate predictors in regression models, to that people who choose to become Montessori teachers might
see whether teacher interaction style in Montessori loads as be different, and might teach more effectively regardless of
or more strongly on outcomes than it does in studies of program type. Ideally one could randomly assign future teachers
conventional teachers, for example using the CLASS (Pianta et al., to Montessori or conventional teacher training, but in lieu of that,
2012). other research strategies should be undertaken.
Value-Added of Montessori Materials CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE

and Methods DIRECTIONS
Even if Montessori teachers differ in some ways from other
teachers that cause better child outcomes, the Montessori Bearing these limitations in mind, the present study offers
materials and the methods with which the materials are used evidence that high fidelity Montessori preschool programs are

more effective than other business-as-usual school programs protocol. Parents or guardians provided written consent for all
at elevating the performance of all children, while also children’s participation in accordance with the Declaration of
equalizing outcomes for subgroups of children who typically Helsinki.
have worse outcomes. First, Montessori programs reduced
the income achievement gap, raising achievement of lower
income children well beyond the levels achieved by the lower AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
income waitlisted controls. In addition, Montessori programs
appeared to work as well for children who were lower in AL conceived of and obtained funding for the study, arranged
executive function at the outset as for children who were with the sites, submitted initial IRBs, chose stimuli, oversaw all
higher in executive function at the outset. Since preschool aspects of running, led effort in writing and statistical analyses
achievement predicts later achievement (Duncan et al., 2007), and submissions. MH arranged for and did data collection
these benefits could feasibly extend upward, but whether they in final study year, entered and cleaned data, maintained
do so remains to be tested. Importantly these gains at preschool family contacts, assisted with analyses and writing. ER arranged
were not at the expense of “soft skills” that are the most for and did data collection in 5th year, entered data and
important predictors of life outcomes (Heckman and Kautz, maintained family contacts for 4 years. XT conducted growth
2012). curve and bootstrapping analyses as well as conceptualization of
Widespread implementation of Montessori programs data, assisted with manuscript. AH created procedure manuals
would be premature prior to further research to examine and materials sets, and maintained family contacts and data
the external validity of this study. There are over 450 base, trained and maintained contacts with on-site RAs, and
public schools in the United States that offer Montessori arranged for data collection visits in first several years of study.
education (National Center for Montessori in the Public PB supervised RAs on site in Hartford, stored material sets,
Sector, 2014), and many of these admit by lottery. (There facilitated local contacts, provided Hartford school information,
are also over 4000 private Montessori schools, but random and assisted with manuscript.
lottery admission in those is unlikely). A large-scale study
should examine outcomes in many more public Montessori
schools, with an eye to Montessori implementation fidelity, FUNDING
as well as teachers and their training. The present study
supports the legitimacy of such a study to determine more Funding for this project was provided by the Brady Education
definitively if Montessori education should be implemented at Foundation.
scale.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ETHICS STATEMENT The authors thank the children, parents, and school
administrators as well as the Regional School Choice Office in
The study was carried out in accordance with the Hartford for their participation; Tim Nee for facilitating the
recommendations in the guidelines for human research of project; and Hedy L. Azarhooshang, Samantha Cusak, Theresa
the Institutional Review Board for the Social and Behavioral Heinz, Erin Kenney, Sheila Morely, Ariel Rodriguez, Carmen
Sciences at the University of Virginia, which approved the study Trainer, and Ashley Wodzicki for collecting data.
REFERENCES Cameron, C. E., Brock, L. L., Hatfield, B. E., Cottone, E. A., Rubinstein, E.,
LoCasale-Crouch, J., et al. (2015). Visuomotor integration and inhibitory
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: goals, structures, and student motivation. J. Educ. control compensate for each other in school readiness. Dev. Psychol. 51,
Psychol. 84, 261–271. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261 1529–1543. doi: 10.1037/a0039740
Ballou, D. (2009). “Magnet school outcomes,” in Handbook of Research on School Cameron, C. E., Brock, L. L., Murrah, W. M., Bell, L. H., Worzalla, S. L.,
Choice, eds M. Berends, M. G. Springer, D. D. Ballou, and H. J. Walberg Grissmer, D., et al. (2012). Fine motor skills and executive function
(New York, NY: Routledge), 409–426. both contribute to kindergarten achievement. Child Dev. 83, 1229–1244.
Bassok, D., Latham, S., and Rorem, A. (2016). Is kindergarten the new first grade? doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01768.x
AERA Open 1, 1–31. doi: 10.1177/2332858415616358 Campbell, F. A., Ramey, C. T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., and Miller-Johnson, S.
Besançon, M., and Lubart, T. (2008). Differences in the development of creative (2002). Early childhood education: young adult outcomes from the abecedarian
competencies in children schooled in diverse learning environments. Learn. project. Appl. Dev. Sci. 6, 42–57. doi: 10.1037/a0026644
Individ. Dif. 18, 381–389. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2007.11.009 Carlson, S. M., and Moses, L. J. (2001). Individual differences in inhibitory control
Blair, C., and Raver, C. C. (2016). Poverty, stress, and brain development: and children’s theory of mind. Child Dev. 72, 1032–1053. doi: 10.1037/0012-
new directions for prevention and intervention. Acad. Pediatr. 16, S30–S36. 1649.40.6.1105
doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2016.01.010 Cossentino, J. (2005). Ritualizing expertise: a non-montessorian view of the
Blair, C., and Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and Montessori method. Am. J. Educ. 111, 211–244. doi: 10.1086/426838
false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2011). “Self-determination theory,” in Handbook of
Child Dev. 78, 647–663. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01019.x Theories of Social Psychology, Vol. 1, eds P. A. M. V. Lange, A. W. Kruglanski,
Brooks-Gunn, J., and Duncan, G. J. (1997). The effects of poverty on children. and E. T. Higgins (London: Sage), 416–433.
Future Child 7, 55–71. doi: 10.2307/1602387 Dennett, D. (1987). The Intentional Stance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

DeVries, R., and Gonçu, A. (1987). Interpersonal relations in four-year dyads Lillard, A. S. (2017). Montessori: The Science behind the Genius, 3rd Edn. New York,
from constructivist and Montessori programs. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 8, 481–501. NY: Oxford University Press.
doi: 10.1016/0193-3973(87)90035-9 Lillard, A. S., and Eisen, S. (2017). “Why Montessori is a facilitative environment
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 64, 135–168. for theory of mind: three speculations,” in Theory of Mind Development in
doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 Context, eds V. Slaughter and M. de Rosnay (London: Routledge), 57–70.
Diamond, A., Barnett, W., Thomas, J., and Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program Lillard, A. S., and Else-Quest, N. (2006). Evaluating Montessori education. Science
improves cognitive control. Science 318, 1387–1388. doi: 10.1126/science. 313, 1893–1894. doi: 10.1126/science.1132362
1151148 Lillard, A. S., and Heise, M. J. (2016). Removing supplementary materials from
Duncan, G., Dowsett, C., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A., Klebanov, P., Montessori classrooms changed child outcomes. J. Montessori Res. 2, 17–27.
et al. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Dev. Psychol. 43, doi: 10.17161/jomr.v2i1.5678
1428–1446. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428 Lipsey, M. W., Farran, D. C., and Hofer, K. G. (2015). A Randomized Control
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Trial of a Statewide Voluntary Prekindergarten Program on Children’s Skills
Development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. and Behaviors through Third Grade. Research Report. Nashville, TN: Peabody
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. New York, NY: Research Institute.
Random House. Lipsey, M. W., Nesbitt, K. T., Farran, D. C., Dong, N., Fuhs, M. W., and Wilson, S. J.
Dweck, C. S. (2017). The journey to children’s mindsets—and beyond. Child Dev. (2017). Learning-related cognitive self-regulation measures for prekindergarten
Perspect. 11, 139–144. doi: 10.1111/cdep.12225 children: a comparative evaluation of the educational relevance of selected
Fisher, A. V., Godwin, K. E., and Seltman, H. (2014). Visual environment, measures. J. Educ. Psychol. doi: 10.1037/edu0000203
attention allocation, and learning in young children when too much of a Mashburn, A., Pianta, R., Hamre, B., Downer, J., Barbarin, O., Bryant, D.,
good thing may be bad. Psychol. Sci. 25, 1362–1370. doi: 10.1177/09567976145 et al. (2008). Measures of classroom quality in prekindergarten and children’s
33801 development of academic, language, and social skills. Child Dev. 79, 732–749.
Fisher, K., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R., Singer, D., and Berk, L. W. (2011). doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01154.x
“Playing around in school: implications for learning and education policy,” in McAfee, A. (2011). Montessori builds innovators. Harvard Bus. Rev. Available at:
Oxford Handbook of the Development of Play, ed. A. Peligrini (New York, NY: https://hbr.org/2011/07/montessori-builds-innovators
Oxford University Press), 341–362. McArdle, J. J., and Nesselroade, J. R. (2014). Longitudinal Data Analysis
Fuhs, M. W., Nesbitt, K. T., Farran, D. C., and Dong, N. (2014). Longitudinal Using Structural Equation Models. Washington, DC: American Psychological
associations between executive functioning and academic skills across content Association.
areas. Dev. Psychol. 50, 1698–1709. doi: 10.1037/a0036633 McClelland, M. M., Cameron, C. E., Connor, C. M., Farris, C. L., Jewkes, A. M., and
Gaylord, C. (2012). Maria Montessori and 10 Famous Graduates from Her Schools. Morrison, F. J. (2007). Links between behavioral regulation and preschoolers’
The Christian Science Monitor. Avaialble at: http://www.csmonitor.com/ literacy, vocabulary, and math skills. Dev. Psychol. 43, 947–959. doi: 10.1037/
Technology/Tech-Culture/2012/0831/Maria-Montessori-and-10-famous- 0012-1649.43.4.947
graduates-from-her-schools/Google-founders-Larry-Page-and-Sergey-Brin Merzenich, M. M. (2001). “Cortical plasticity contributing to child development,”
[accessed November 10, 2015] in Mechanisms of Cognitive Development: Behavioral and Neural Perspectives.
Grissmer, D., Grimm, K. J., Aiyer, S. M., Murrah, W. M., and Steele, J. S. Carnegie Mellon Symposia on Cognition, eds J. L. McClelland and R. S. Siegler
(2010). Fine motor skills and early comprehension of the world: two new (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), 67–95.
school readiness indicators. Dev. Psychol. 46, 1008–1017. doi: 10.1037/a00 Miller, L. B., and Bizzell, R. P. (1984). Long-term effects of four preschool programs:
20104 ninth- and tenth-grade results. Child Dev. 55, 1570–1587. doi: 10.2307/1130027
Guilford, J., and Christensen, P. R. (1973). The one-way relation between creative Minervino, J., and Pianta, R. (2014). “Early learning: the new fact base and cost
potential and IQ. J. Creat. Behav. 7, 247–252. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.1973. sustainability,” in Lessons from Research and the Classroom, ed. J. Minervino
tb01096.x (Washington, DC: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation).
Haskins, R., and Brooks-Gunn, J. (2016). Trouble in the land of early childhood Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington,
education? The Future of Children. Princeton, NJ: Brookings. H. L., et al. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth,
Heckman, J. J. (2006). Skill formation and the economics of investing in and public safety. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 2693–2698. doi: 10.1073/
disadvantaged children. Science 312, 1900–1902. doi: 10.1126/science.112 pnas.1010076108
8898 Montessori, M. (1914/1965). Dr. Montessori’s Own Handbook. New York, NY:
Heckman, J. J., and Kautz, T. (2012). Hard evidence on soft skills. Labour Econ. 19, Schocken.
451–464. doi: 10.1016/j.labeco.2012.05.014 Montessori, M. (1917/1965). Spontaneous Activity in Education: The Advanced
Karnes, M., Shewedel, A., and Williams, M. (1983). “A comparison of five Montessori Method, trans. F. Simmonds. New York, NY: Schocken.
approaches for educating young children from low-income homes,” in As Montessori, M. (1994a). Creative Development in the Child I, trans. R.
the Twig is Bent: Lasting Effects of Preschool Programs, ed. Consortium for Ramachandran. Madras: Kalakshetra Press.
Longitudinal Studies (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Elbaum), 133–171. Montessori, M. (1994b). Creative Development in the Child II, trans. R.
Kayılı, G. (2016). The effect of Montessori method on cognitive tempo of Ramachandran. Madras: Kalakshetra Press.
kindergarten children. Early Child Dev. Care. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2016. Montessori, M. (2016). Psychoarithmetic, Vol. 20. Amsterdam: Montessori-Pierson
1217849 Publishing.
Kenney, D. A. (2015). Measuring Model Fit. Available at: http://davidakenny.net/ National Center for Montessori in the Public Sector (2014). 2014 Census Data
cm/fit.htm [accessed September 13, 2017]. Snapshot. Available at: http://www.public-montessori.org/public-montessori-
Korkman, M., Kirk, U., and Kemp, S. (2007). Nepsy-II: Clinical and Interpretive censussnapshot-2014
Manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. National Early Childcare Research Network (2005). Early child care and children’s
Koster-Hale, J., and Saxe, R. (2013). “Functional neuroimaging of theory of development in the primary grades: follow-up results from the NICHD study of
mind,” in Understanding Other Minds: Perspectives from Developmental Social early child care. Am. Educ. Res. J. 42, 537–570. doi: 10.3102/00028312042003537
Neuroscience, 3rd Edn, eds S. Baron-Cohen, M. Lombardo, and H. Tager- Peng, H.-H., and Md-Yunus, S. (2014). Do children in Montessori schools perform
Flusberg (New York, NY: Oxford University Press), 132–163. better in the achievement test? A Taiwanese perspective. Int. J. Early Child. 46,
Ladd, G. W., Buhs, E. S., and Seid, M. (2000). Children’s initial sentiments about 299–311. doi: 10.1007/s13158-014-0108-7
kindergarten: Is school liking an antecedent of early classroom participation Peterson, C. C. (2000). Kindred spirits: influences of siblings’ perspectives
and achievement? Merrill Palmer Q. 46, 255–279. on theory of mind. Cogn. Dev. 15, 435–455. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2014(01)
Lillard, A. S. (2012). Preschool children’s development in classic Montessori, 00040-5
supplemented Montessori, and conventional programs. J. Sch. Psychol. 50, Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., and Allen, J. P. (2012). “Teacher-student relationships
379–401. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2012.01.001 and engagement: conceptualizing, measuring, and improving the capacity of

classroom interactions,” in Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, ed. risk for school failure. Child Dev. Perspect. 6, 122–128. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.
C. M. Christensen (New York, NY: Springer), 365–386. 2011.00209.x
Ponitz, C. C., McClelland, M. M., Jewkes, A. M., Connor, C. M., Farris, C. L., Verdine, B., Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., and Newcombe, N. (2017). Links
and Morrison, F. J. (2008). Touch your toes! Developing a direct measure between spatial and mathematical skills across the preschool years. Soc. Res.
of behavioral regulation in early childhood. Early Child. Res. Q. 23, 141–158. Child Dev. Monogr. 82, 1–150.
doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.01.004 Vernon-Feagans, L., Willoughby, M., Garrett-Peters, P., and Project, T. F. L.
Ponitz, C. C., McClelland, M. M., Matthews, J. S., and Morrison, F. J. (2009). (2016). Predictors of behavioral regulation in kindergarten: household
A structured observation of behavioral self-regulation and its contribution to chaos, parenting, and early executive functions. Dev. Psychol. 52, 430–441.
kindergarten outcomes. Dev. Psychol. 45, 605–619. doi: 10.1037/a0015365 doi: 10.1037/dev0000087
Powell, L. J., and Carey, S. (2017). Executive function depletion in children and Wang, Y., and Su, Y. (2009). False belief understanding: children catch it from
its impact on theory of mind. Cognition 164, 150–162. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition. classmates of different ages. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 33, 331–337. doi: 10.1177/
2017.03.022 0165025409104525
Rathunde, K. R., and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2005). Middle school students’ Wellman, H. M. (2014). Making Minds: How Theory of Mind Develops. New York,
motivation and quality of experience: a comparison of Montessori and NY: Oxford University Press.
traditional school environments. Am. J. Educ. 111, 341–371. doi: 10.1086/ Wellman, H. M., and Liu, D. (2004). Scaling of theory-of-mind tasks. Child Dev.
428885 75, 523–541. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00691.x
Raver, C. C., Jones, S. M., Li-Grining, C., Zhai, F., Bub, K., and Pressler, E. (2011). Willoughby, M. T., Wirth, R., and Blair, C. B. (2011). Contributions of modern
CSRP’s impact on low-income preschoolers’ preacademic skills: self-regulation measurement theory to measuring executive function in early childhood: an
as a mediating mechanism. Child Dev. 82, 362–378. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624. empirical demonstration. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 108, 414–435. doi: 10.1016/j.
2010.01561.x jecp.2010.04.007
Reardon, S. F. (2011). “The widening academic achievement gap between the rich Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., and Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III
and the poor: new evidence and possible explanations,” in Whither Opportunity; Tests of Achievement. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances, eds G. Duncan and R. Yoshikawa, H., Aber, J. L., and Beardslee, W. R. (2012). The effects of poverty
Murnane (New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation), 91–116. on the mental, emotional, and behavioral health of children and youth:
Rubin, K. H. (1988). The Social Problem-Solving Test-Revised. Waterloo, ON: implications for prevention. Am. Psychol. 67, 272–284. doi: 10.1037/a00
University of Waterloo. 28015
Ruffman, T., Perner, J., Naito, M., Parkin, L., and Clements, W. (1998). Older Zhang, T., and Meaney, M. (2010). Epigenetics and the environmental regulation
(but not younger) siblings facilitate false belief understanding. Dev. Psychol. 34, of the genome and its function. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 61, 439–466. doi: 10.1146/
161–174. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.34.1.161 annurev.psych.60.110707.163625
Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., and Nores, M.
(2005). Lifetime Effects: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study through Age 40. Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was
Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope. conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: a meta- be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
analytic review of research. Rev. Educ. Res. 75, 417–453. doi: 10.3102/
00346543075003417 Copyright © 2017 Lillard, Heise, Richey, Tong, Hart and Bray. This is an open-
Smiley, P. A., and Dweck, C. S. (1994). Individual differences in achievement goals access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
among young children. Child Dev. 65, 1723–1743. doi: 10.2307/1131290 License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted,
Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original
Learners, 2nd Edn. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.
Ursache, A., Blair, C., and Raver, C. C. (2012). The promotion of self-regulation No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these
as a means of enhancing school readiness and early achievement in children at terms.

APPENDIX
The following factor model was fitted separately at each time point:
Table A1 below shows the factor loadings and fit indices with factor loadings freely estimated. All models show excellent fit (from
Kenney, 2015: for CFI, values over 0.9 are considered good; for RMSEA, 0.10 is the cut-off; for SRMR, less than 0.08 indicates good
fit).
TABLE A1 | Factor loadings and fit indices for academic achievement and executive function.
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4
Academic achievement
Letter word 0.531 0.541 0.647 0.682
Math 0.945 0.906 0.785 0.789
Vocabulary 0.629 0.602 0.560 0.530
Executive function
Head toes 0.182 0.639 0.531 0.612
Copy figures 0.198 0.547 0.498 0.540
Fit indices
CFI 0.998 0.993 0.966 0.976
RMSEA 0.025 0.043 0.091 0.077
SRMR 0.030 0.029 0.034 0.031
A further analysis was done to determine fit with factors constrained to be equal; these results are shown in Table A2.
TABLE A2 | Factor loadings and fit indices for academic achievement and executive function: constrained.
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4
Academic achievement
Letter word 0.726 0.700 0.663 0.678
Math 0.726 0.700 0.663 0.678
Vocabulary 0.726 0.700 0.663 0.678
Executive function
Head toes 0.195 0.588 0.512 0.575
Copy figures 0.195 0.588 0.512 0.575
Fit indices
CFI 0.916 0.931 0.960 0.962
RMSEA 0.111 0.107 0.075 0.073
SRMR 0.072 0.071 0.050 0.058
In this analysis, for Time 1, when factors are constrained to be equal, model fit is more than adequate by two indices (CFI and
SRMR) but by the RMSEA model fit is not good initially, when children are younger and there is more error (some very young
children might not understand test instructions, for example); it becomes acceptable by Times 3 and 4.

Estimulação FE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estimulação FE

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estimulação FE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

published: 30 October 2017

Montessori Preschool Elevates and

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 October 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1783

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 October 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1783

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 October 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1783

In addition to examining the overall efficacy of Montessori TABLE 1 | Sample characteristics.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4 October 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1783

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5 October 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1783

Academic Ability Executive Function

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6 October 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1783

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7 October 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1783

RESULTS Overall Findings: Montessori vs.

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8 October 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1783

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9 October 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1783

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 October 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1783

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 11 October 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1783

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 12 October 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1783

Theory of Mind Executive Function

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 13 October 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1783

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 14 October 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1783

Value-Added of Montessori Materials CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 15 October 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1783

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 16 October 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1783

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 17 October 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1783

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 18 October 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1783

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 19 October 2017 | Volume 8 | Article 1783

You might also like