Although the approach differs a fair bit, the intended effect sounds very similar to my understanding of Montessori parenting and education systems. This style emphasizes the child’s independence, encouraging children to use real, “adult” tools, such as knives and glass cups as opposed to toy knives and sippy cups so they can learn these skills, and generally are expected to do the things that they are able for themselves. There is a focus on child-led learning, with you providing the things that the child needs to develop. For instance, a child going through a schema where they’re refining fine motor control would benefit from being provided with a wide variety of toys and games to exercise this skill, and as their interests shift elsewhere you would shift the toys in their environment to reflect this change. I believe another goal is creating a yes space, where the child is safe to use or play with everything in a given room, even if left unsupervised, from a young age.
There are a few other tenants of Montessori parenting, such as not exposing young children to fictional books before a certain age as it’s suggested they may have trouble distinguishing fiction from reality until and an emphasis on filling the child’s environment with high quality natural materials like woods, metals, and so on as opposed to plastics, including in the case of toys.
I’ve not read into it very deeply yet so my description may be inaccurate in places, but I believe that it originated in Italy, as a style of education aimed to help children with mental disorders reach a better level of independence and self-sufficiency.
When the kids started being able to climb things, I would spot them. Often they wanted me to lift them or support them in their climbing, and I wouldn’t. They would also want to be lifted down at the end, but the rule would be “if you can climb up, you can climb down.”
And this, as well as a few other points you mention, remind me of this documentary about a school in New Zealand with a no rules policy. They allow the kids to climb, but maintain that if they get up on their own, they can get down on their own as well. They also don’t seem to intervene unless a child explicitly asks for help, allowing issues to be resolved by the children, potentially with the help of the older children should they desire to intervene.
It’s an interesting policy, and one I appreciate, effectively providing children with an adventure playground on school property. I remember seeing something to the effect of children who are given the opportunity to take risks and test their limits with a large degree of freedom will develop a better understanding of their limits as teenagers and into adulthood, allowing them to take more calculated risks than their peers, who would be just starting to build this life skill. I wish I knew the source for it, but it certainly rings true of my own personal experiences working with children.
Although the approach differs a fair bit, the intended effect sounds very similar to my understanding of Montessori parenting and education systems. This style emphasizes the child’s independence, encouraging children to use real, “adult” tools, such as knives and glass cups as opposed to toy knives and sippy cups so they can learn these skills, and generally are expected to do the things that they are able for themselves. There is a focus on child-led learning, with you providing the things that the child needs to develop. For instance, a child going through a schema where they’re refining fine motor control would benefit from being provided with a wide variety of toys and games to exercise this skill, and as their interests shift elsewhere you would shift the toys in their environment to reflect this change. I believe another goal is creating a yes space, where the child is safe to use or play with everything in a given room, even if left unsupervised, from a young age.
There are a few other tenants of Montessori parenting, such as not exposing young children to fictional books before a certain age as it’s suggested they may have trouble distinguishing fiction from reality until and an emphasis on filling the child’s environment with high quality natural materials like woods, metals, and so on as opposed to plastics, including in the case of toys.
I’ve not read into it very deeply yet so my description may be inaccurate in places, but I believe that it originated in Italy, as a style of education aimed to help children with mental disorders reach a better level of independence and self-sufficiency.
And this, as well as a few other points you mention, remind me of this documentary about a school in New Zealand with a no rules policy. They allow the kids to climb, but maintain that if they get up on their own, they can get down on their own as well. They also don’t seem to intervene unless a child explicitly asks for help, allowing issues to be resolved by the children, potentially with the help of the older children should they desire to intervene.
It’s an interesting policy, and one I appreciate, effectively providing children with an adventure playground on school property. I remember seeing something to the effect of children who are given the opportunity to take risks and test their limits with a large degree of freedom will develop a better understanding of their limits as teenagers and into adulthood, allowing them to take more calculated risks than their peers, who would be just starting to build this life skill. I wish I knew the source for it, but it certainly rings true of my own personal experiences working with children.