Montessori Curriculum
There are two curricula of interest in the current study, namely, the Montessori-based curriculum and the standards-based curriculum. An overview and the strengths and weaknesses of each shall be discussed in the succeeding sections.
2.2 Overview of the Montessori Curriculum
Montessori (1948, 1965, 1981) espoused that the inherent problems with traditional modes of learning must be resolutely resolved through a paradigm shift in educational approach. Dr. Montessori first focused her efforts on mentally retarded children and subsequently, she received academic and global acclaim for these initial efforts. Disadvantaged children passing typical tests of achievement attested to the sheer effectiveness of her unorthodox approach (Kramer, 1976). What stirred further research interest was the outcome, which suggested that disadvantaged children could and were performing at par with ordinary children (Piaget, 1970). Montessori then focused her studies onto the process of normal development to optimize childrens learning potential towards increased academic achievement (Montessori, 1948).
Montessori classrooms possessed features that typically reflected the adjustments that accommodated the needs of children (Cottom, 1996 Dansereau, 1996 Haines, 1993). A Montessori classroom is usually a large and open space, which consists of shelves as well as different sized-tables and chairs. Even though such a set-up is fairly common in contemporary Montessori accredited schools, the design of furniture well fitted for the children was a pioneering early innovation of Montessori (1948 in Elkind, 1976). Since the Montessori classroom is arranged into various areas, each is provided with educational materials for a particular subject such as art, music, mathematics, science, language, and so on. They have a high regard towards special tools and materials, and ensure that these resources are meaningfully interrelated and contribute substantially to the curriculum (Camp, Judge, Bye, Fox Bowden, 1997). Their materials are broken down into organized steps that children can separately learn, prior to putting them together to accomplish the main activity (Lillard, 2005). This setting is in stark contrast with mainstream education where children mostly learn out of texts. At elementary level, books are regarded as important tools for learning however, Montessori believed that hands-on materials were more helpful for the development of deep concentration among children (Glitter, 1966, 1970 Piaget 1970).
Schools that advocate the Montessori system give high premium to respect for an individuals needs (Lillard, 1996, 2005). Children are given the freedom to comfortably and effectively meet their needs for learning (Montessori, 1948, 1965). The archetypal Montessori classroom does not assign seats to students, and they are given free rein to work anywhere, whether on tables, on the floor, or a location of their own choosing (Lillard, 1996). Moreover, they can also opt to work on their own or in groups that they themselves form, when the teacher is not delivering a lesson for the plenary (Glitter, 1966 1970). Montessori education is characteristically organized in a stringent sense and such orderliness may discourage students particularly at the preschool level, where classrooms are very quiet, unlike what students in traditional preschools have been accustomed to (Grieshaber Ryan, 2005). Research suggests that an orderly environment has been correlated with optimal learning results among children however, parents may not always agree with such stringent regulations (Grieshaber Ryan, 2005 Lillard, 2005). Furthermore, rather than giving tests to evaluate the abilities of students, teachers in a Montessori institution observe children at work, and coach them on an individual basis, when called for (Grant, 1985 Zeman, 1996).
The introduction of novel content will only be given when students exhibit the behavioral indicators related to satisfactory understanding of the material previously taught (Piaget, 1970). Under such a carefully planned method, children easily learn how to write in cursive at the age of 5. Their reading skills become conspicuous months after their writing begins (Montessori, 1948, 1965). The long-term advantages of being able to read at an early age have been empirically proven (Boehnlein, 1995 Coleman Vaughn, 2000 Cunningham Stanovich, 1998 Falik, 1969). For instance, the vocabulary and reading comprehension of eleventh graders were significantly predicted by their reading fluency from 10 years before (Cunningham and Stanovich, 1997). Moreover, the study of Byrne Fielding-Barnsley (1995) among pre-school students who were trained in language awareness attained higher results in reading comprehension tests after three years, similar to those who were educated under controlled conditions. Moreover, proficiency in reading skills can best be predicted by a childs level of interest in reading (Lonigan Whitehurst, 1998). These findings suggest that forcing children to go through a difficult, tedious process to develop reading skills will not instill in them the joy of reading a definite characteristic of individuals who read a lot (Mckenzie, 1995 Yott, 1976). Unlike the long and difficult process that majority of mainstream children conventionally go through, learning to read and write under a Montessori system transformed reading into an enjoyable activity (Harvey, 1999 Lonigan Whitehurst, 1998).
2.3 Effectiveness of Montessori-based Education and the Optimal Experience Theory
Montessori (1967) implies that the lengthened development period of children has meaningful consequences for the learning of children. In effect, the observations and experiences of children during this time frame have implications on the development of the child and persona. In fact, the early years have been considered by Montessori as an extension of fetal life, where there is close interaction with external stimuli, marked by experiences that potently influence the childs character (Montessori, 1948). She acknowledged that encouragement of the characteristics of young children, which include extemporaneous focus and engaged discovery, may transform society and encourage individuals of all ages to continuously learn (Harvey, 1999). She further opined that society is structured with adults, rather than childrens, traits as a focal point (Hallenberg, 1996).
Under the Montessori educational system, children are often seen as motivated doers instead of empty vessels (Lillard, 2005). According to Elkind (1976), the Montessori system regards children as active learners therefore, children in Montessori classrooms develop their own, distinct way of learning. This is made possible when they pursue their own projects and choose what they want to learn (Montessori, 1965). The Montessori system has at its core the following principles
The first principle is that there is a close relationship between movement and acquiring knowledge (Lillard, 2005). An individuals brain can only evolve in a world in which he or she moves (Ginsburg and Opper, 1979 Healy, 1995).
The second principle is free choice, anchored on Montessoris (1948, 1965) observation that children develop in an environment that promotes personal choice and control among children (Fitzwilliam, 1978).
The third Montessori principle is interest, which can be personal and can naturally come from within or can be situational or that which is developed when exposed to certain people, events and activities (Lillard, 2005).
Montessori programs do have limits on such freedom owing to its structured approach to learning however, children are free to exercise greater autonomy compared to those in mainstream classroom settings (Kai, 1993 Kendall, 1993). Freedom and choice, when incorporated in a structure that is prudently planned, are correlated with better psychological and learning outcomes (Isaacs, 2007 Turner, 1993).
Csikszentmihalyis (1997) concept of flow is remarkably similar to Montessoris (1948, 1965) concept of focus, as pointed out by Rathunde (2001). In effect, ideal learning environments are able to maintain experiences of intense focus, and allow the learner to refer and re-experience them this process allows for a complex, sustained growth that compels further focus and learning. In support of these theories, a setting that encourages optimal experience and sustains focus is ideal for learning. Such a system must be complicated, in that it allows for flexibility of adjusting from opposite ends of a continuum liberty vs. structure or individuation vs. sense of being a collective. Such complexity permits the adolescent to continuously adjust and maintain focus. In Montessori elementary schools, children pursue learning by writing and articulating about things that fascinate them and relating these to content (Hainstock, 1997).
The first three principles of Montessori are in consonance with the flow concept empirically investigated by Csikszentmihalyis (1990) for two and half decades. Optimal experience theory upholds that subjective experience is at the core of an individuals growth. Flow pertains to moments when a person is completely focused on an activity, unmindful of time, resolute about what needs to be achieved. In such a condition, an individuals awareness is synergized with activity and the latter is carried out through sheer motivation than any other external reward that comes with task accomplishment. The flow theory asserts that an ideal match exists between the individuals competencies and the task relegated to him, thus implying an effectual relationship between the environment and the individual and the latters full engagement on the activity (Csikszentmihalyi 1997 Csikszentmihalyi Selega-Csikszentmihalyi, 1988).
The fourth principle states that extrinsic rewards should be avoided which suggests that grades and gold stars may disrupt the concentration of students (Lillard, 2005). Interest in an activity can be best sustained in the absence of extrinsic rewards (Loeffler, 1994). In addition, the fifth principle of Montessori education focuses on learning with and from fellow students. In the traditional school community, the teacher provides the children with information and the structure of learning precludes children from optimally learning from each other (Lillard, 2005). Working in teams seldom transpires in mainstream classrooms, where activities are heavily focused on cognitive ability, such as tests and papers are alone individually (Coe, 1996 Rathunde Csikszentmihalyi, 2005). In contrast, Montessori institutions accord their students with the freedom to work groups, to optimize skills acquisition and development (Gettman, 2001).
Yet another means through which children learn is through effective context (Lillard, 2005). This is the sixth principle of this system. In mainstream schools, children sometimes learn superficially, without profound conceptual understanding of how their learning can be applied beyond school tests (Shapiro, 1994). In contrast, Montessori education teaches children by doing, not just through sheer auditory or visual means learning is thus strongly experiential (Epstein, 1990). For instance, when students go out, those who are interested in building bridges and structures can come up to a local engineer who can explain to them how bridges are actually built and designed (Gettman, 2001). This method reflects that learning is made more potent when it engages the current interests of the student (citation), which is yet another confirmation of the optimal experience theory (Csikszentmihalyi 1990 Csikszentmihalyi Selega-Csikszentmihalyi, 1988).
A setting that allows for optimal experience is what Csikszentmihalyi (1997) describes as an environment that permits flow. Montessori (1989) shares that a conducive environment for learning is characterized by being free in selecting the activity or task that one is to engage in. Only in having such an environment will extemporaneous focus be possible. Haberman (1976) notes that the Montessori approach is distinct from other approaches that permit unconstrained freedom of the child, because they place high premium on the value of intrinsic drive. In contrast, Montessori (1948, 1967) has seriously considered this point and ensured that the Montessori approach delimits such freedom reasonably, making sure that order and structure are still complied with. Thus, as Joosten (1995) notes, the Montessori approach accords freedom to children in making the correct options, and not any other task that they so desire. Moreover, such liberty is imperatively constrained by the welfare of the group as embodied in taking turns and respecting other children ensuring that things are packed away properly, and the overall readiness of the child to take on novel lessons (Loeffler, 1994 Ramachandran, 1997 Shapiro, 1994).
Still on the careful planning and structuring of the environment for optimal learning, it should be filled with materials that will spur the interest and address the preferences of the child compelling him to be inquisitive and stimulating his intellect (Hilliard, 1996 Martin, 1993). The Montessori approach likewise places premium on concrete, rather than ambiguous, abstract, concepts (Lillard, 2005). Be that as it may, much effort is allotted in the structure and organization of teaching materials that are sequentially offered to the child (Rathunde, 2001). The child is thus constrained only to the options that are equivalent to his competency level (Kramer, 1976). Thus, he is not given more stimuli just for the mere sake of discovery. The materials that are presented to him to a significant degree decrease the probability for mistakes (Dansereau, 1996). This approach provides an effective, concrete interface between the child and the material. While this point of interface is distinct for each child due to their varying competency levels and upbringing, they all share the changing equilibrium between thoughts and action (Haines, 1993).
The seventh principle of Montessori education focuses on how teachers must interact and communicate with children (Lillard, 2005). When adults set clear parameters as regards limits and yet grant them a significant degree of freedom within these parameters, learning outcomes are more likely (Ramachandran, 1997). Adults maintain a high level of expectations for them, allowing development, understanding, responsibility, achievement and other favorable outcomes (Csikszentmihalyi 1997 Hilliard, 1996). Traditional schools have become absorbed in the command and control attitude, which has posed stringent demands on their students, and have yielded certain repercussions instead of positive results (Hainstock, 1997). Finally, the eighth principle of Montessori education is to create order in the environment for students to have an orderly mind (Lillard, 2005). Montessori classrooms are very organized with how materials are laid out and the logical sequence of their usage (Amsterlaw and Wellman, 2006 McKenzie, 1995). Orderliness in instruction is critical in promoting a childs learning, growth and development (Hilliard, 1996 Pickering, 1992). It has also been suggested that presenting materials in organized manner allows for positive adjustment and regulation of ones senses (Lillard, 1996).
As a result, children who experience Montessori-based education develop high motivation as the values of independence, autonomy, confidence, and discipline are indelibly imbibed through instruction (Brendtro Long, 1997 Duax, 1989 Turner, 1993). Because of their positive experiences in learning, education becomes a source of pleasure rather than a burdensome, tedious process (Hainstock, 1997), again sharing a commonality with what optimal experience theory espouses (Csikszentmihalyi 1990). Each student is given many opportunities for developing his natural abilities to their full potential, in an environment where competition is nil and insignificant . Consequently, students under the Montessori educational system develop a strong drive for learning and a predisposition towards high levels of academic achievement (Coe, 1996 Loeffler 1992, 1993).
Rathunde (2001) asserts that there are three areas of commonality between the theory of optimal experience of Csikszentmihalyi (1990) and Montessoris (1948, 1965) principles. The first commonality is the fact that the child is placed as a social focus, acknowledging that their highly developed traits lend credence to the high stature of human nature. A second point that the two frameworks share is the acknowledgement that profound focus, known in Csikszentmihalyis (1997) typology as flow is very closely linked to childrens biological heritage (Rathunde, 2001, p. 12) and that the unification of mental facilities and the physical body is the core of human development and drive for continuous learning. Finally, the recognition that social settings such as academic institutions ought to be structured in a manner that encourages focus, interest, critical thinking, and learning (Rathunde, 2001).
Montessori (1948, 1965) acknowledged that humans are distinguished from other life forms since humans have a prolonged childhood. In lieu of this, she expresses, Man seems to have two embryonic periods. One is prenatal, like that of the animals the other is postnatal and only man has this. The prolonged infancy of man separates him entirely from the animals. It forms a complete barrier, whereby man is seen as being different from all others (Montessori, 1967, p. 60). Yet another similarity between the approaches of Montessori (1965, 1989) and Csikszentmihalyi (1990) is on the importance of a conducive environment to learning. Whereas Montessori (1965, p.189) terms her ideal environment as a prepared environment, Csikszentmihalyi (1990) cites the importance of building an ideal home to encourage optimal experiences among adolescents. The similarities between these two are as follows. First, attaching high premium to extemporaneous interest to such extent as to take as a parents main objective building an ideal context for optimal experiences. Second, is preserving equilibrium between liberty and rules that promotes an equivalent balance in the childs focus. Third, is the concept of a parent as someone who preserves the adolescents focus to avoid disturbances. Finally, being adept at observing the behaviors of the adolescent to ensure the optimal balance between learning a previous concept or introducing a novel lesson.
A multi-faceted family is likewise an effectual venue for promoting focus and flow, for as long as it permits the formation of the values supportive of optimal experiences (Chen, 1998). These necessitate the presence of reasonable freedom and discipline sense of self and community and individuation and collective sense (Cottom, 1996 Montessori, 1981). To build an ideal learning environment for the child, the parents of a Montessori-educated child ought to promote a healthy equilibrium on these extremes of the continuum (Glitter, 1970 Grant, 1985). The behaviors that promote such a balance include compassion, empathy, taking away disturbances that go against flow, allowing the child to select his tasks, among others. Rathunde (2001) puts forth that these conditions trigger interest. In contrast, the imbalanced provision of freedom or rigidity in rules hamper the formation of optimal experiences (Dansereau, 1996). Rathunde (2001) and Montessori (1948, 1965) further assert that optimal experience research prods adults to pay greater emphasis to the experiences of children and on their capability for spontaneous activity and focus to enthuse continuous learning and development.
The teacher takes on a critical role in the process of building optimal experience (Montessori, 1965). She catalyzes the process through which the child channels his energies to focus. An important trait of the teacher is her capability to maintain a structured environment, in materials preparation and coordination, and ensuring that all materials are easily accessible to all children (Dansereau, 1996). The effectual teacher preserves the concentration of the child and disturbances are reduced to avoid lack of structure and waste of energy (Montessori, 1981). This process eventually permits the child unambiguous responses that will allow her to maintain focus (Rathunde, 2001).
There should be keen awareness on the part of the Montessori teacher, as regards the environment in which the child moves. She must make certain that the environment is dovetailed to the needs of the child since it is the channel through which flow and optimal experiences are encouraged. The environment captures the childs inherent drive for spontaneity. Apart from maintaining the environment for learning, the teacher is likewise tasked to observe the experiences of the child (Montessori, 1965, 1981). In effect, the teacher takes careful note of instances when indifference or monotony are exhibited since these preclude flow (Grant, 1985). These sessions of observation are not obtrusive, compared to those done in mainstream classroom, and are carried out with the clear intent of helping others realize their full potential (Zeman, 1996). In addition, the teacher must exercise prudence in her words to ensure that the child maintains his intrinsic drive similar to knowing when it is not right to disrupt the work pace of an adult who is carrying out a task intensely (Rathunde, 2001). Clearly, under the Montessori approach, the highest premium is attached to the childs focus (Lillard, 1996, 2005).
There is also no benefit in assisting children in carrying out tasks to completion, especially if they are in reality, capable of completing these on their own. She promoted a balanced approach to giving adequate input to the child nothing more and nothing less to optimize learning (Montessori, 1989) increase feelings of self-efficacy (Claremont, 1995) and allow the child to challenge his development limits (Schmidt, 2009). These teacher characteristics are reliant on the teachers belief in her calling to foster the quintessential meaning of childhood, which ought to be perceived as among the noblest objectives of society (Montessori, 1965, 1989). Moreover, the teacher must be convinced that focus and spontaneous energy is the core of authentic learning and development if such are freed in a prepared environment and reinforced in a consistent way, the child will imbibe discipline, which he may apply in other facets of his development (Lillard, 1996, 2005).
For over a century, Montessori education has burgeoned in popularity, with an estimated 5,000 schools and institutions in the United States alone, including 300 public schools and some high schools adapting the Montessori curriculum (Lillard, 1996, 2005). Montessori education is primarily characterized by classrooms that include students of various ages (Elkind, 1970 Piaget, 1970) a special set of educational tools and materials dovetailed to students needs (Lillard, 2005) activities that are mostly chosen by the students (Montessori, 1948, 1965) collaboration and teamwork absence of typical measures of cognitive ability and an emphasis on both academic and social skills (Martin, 1993 Orem Coburn, 1978). The Montessori approach effectually responds to the behaviors and difficulties that students with emotional disabilities manifest.
The primary aim of Dohrmans (2003) study is to identify the main effects of Montessori education among students with emotional and behavioral disorders, compared with other elementary school education programs. Children were studied in two of the levels in which Montessori education has been widely implemented, namely, primary (3 to 6 years old) and elementary (6 to 12 years old) levels. The Montessori school that was studied is located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, providing services for urban minority children for nine years. The Association Montessori Internationale (AMI) has recognized it for its effective implementation of Montessori principles (Amsterlaw and Wellman, 2006).
The study acknowledged all the methodological limitations of Montessori research and attempted to mitigate them. It involved a large number of Montessori teachers, gathered data from numerous students, and made use of schools that seemed to offer good Montessori quality. Even though they followed the requirements for public schools such as the use of particular workbooks and tests, they had an association with AMI, the accrediting organization that Dr. Montessori established to supervise the performance of Montessori schools. The results of the study were outstanding as the children in these public Milwaukee Montessori schools from pre-school to fifth grade attained higher grades on standardized tests in math and science compared to other schools. However, the results still have to be analyzed more carefully as the Montessori groups in this study were actually self-selected. Moreover, the influence of their parents may be the cause of such positive outcomes. The ideal study would include children who are randomly assigned, a large number of teachers, superior implementation of the Montessori curriculum as well as a longitudinal time frame (Lillard, 1996).
There were 59 Montessori and 53 control students who were investigated. The 5-year old group included 30 Montessori and 25 control children, while the 12-year old group was comprised of 29 Montessori and 28 control children. Children at the Montessori school were enlisted from all six classrooms at the primary level and all four at the upper elementary level. On the other hand, the control children were enrolled at non-Montessori schools 40 children from 27 city public schools and 13 children from 12 suburban public schools. Majority of these public schools had implemented special programs including a school system that focuses on arts, languages and discovery learning. The children in both groups were tested for their academic capabilities as well as social and behavioral skills for their importance in life, and not for the expected outcomes of Montessori education. Results suggest that there were no significant differences among the 5-year olds in terms of basic vocabulary as the latter is primarily related to ones family background. Furthermore, there were no evident differences for skills that included basic thinking and concept formation. In other tests, Montessori children were significantly more likely to use of a higher level of reasoning. Moreover, even though majority of the students with emotional disabilities were not completely friendly and sociable, Montessori children were more likely to become involved in a positive interaction with their peers and were less likely to be involved in rough play compared to those under other educational programs. The 12-year old students also yielded similar results. Those under the Montessori education were more creative and had more control in most of their tests moreover, a large percentage was more likely to choose positive responses for social situations despite their supposed lack of social skills. Montessori students were also shown to have a greater sense of teamwork and community compared to those instructed under other educational systems (Dohrman, 2003).
Such findings indicate that the children who have emotional and behavioral disabilities at public city Montessori schools had superior and more satisfactory outcomes compared to those who attended other schools. By the end of their kindergarten level, Montessori students attained better performance on tests were more engaged in a positive communication and interaction within the school setting and showed more control and flexibility (Dohrman, 2003). Moreover, at the end of elementary school, Montessori children had more creative answers in tests chose more positive responses to social problems and had a larger sense of teamwork and community in their school. Lillard (2005) asserts that Montessori education has a structure that is primarily different from that of traditional education. When effectively implemented, Montessori education enhances social and academic skills that are equal or even superior to those fostered in other schools. Future research is suggested to improve on research design, such as sampling students at random or through a lottery design, which allows for control of parental influence. Furthermore, the other components of Montessori education such as their materials or opportunities for shared work among students can be associated to the outcomes of interest (Amsterlaw and Wellman, 2006).
Montessori programs have continuously grown over the past decades (ODonnell, 2003). There have been major factors that contributed to such growth, such as the expansion from private to public settings as well as the extension from pre-school to elementary, junior high school, and even beyond such levels (Bateman and Linden, 1998). The growth of Montessori education has brought about major concerns about outcomes on students, particularly on academic achievement (Katz, 1990). Particularly, there have been concerns about the academic performance of Montessori students who have emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) when they move to mainstream academic settings (Goldring Presbrey, 1986).
The study of Clark, Cheyne, Cunningham and Siegel (1998) compared the academic outcomes of two groups of students who graduated from New York public schools from the years 1997 to 2001. The first group consisted of students who completed 5th grade in Montessori programs at Greenfield and MacDowell from 1990 to 1994. The second group was a sample of graduates from the same high schools, except that they did not go through any Montessori education. The Greenfield and MacDowell Montessori programs were established in the seventies and have consistently worked for a high level of Montessori practice and principles (Clark et al, 1998). Clark et al (1998) acknowledged that the favorable outcomes yielded by Montessori school research is confounded by the fact that student placed under these have affluent socio-economic backgrounds and receive positive parental influence. These extraneous variables cause them to do well academically regardless of the educational approach they receive. Their study thus addressed these confounding issues, and conducted a longitudinal study involving randomly placed students, to confine the effects of Montessori-based education.
The Montessori sample included 201 students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) who started their Montessori education at the age of three or four in the Greenfield or MacDowell Montessori schools, completed their fifth grade between 1990 and 1994 at these schools, and maintained an active standing within the New York Public Schools throughout their high school. Accordingly, a comparison group (Peer Control) was carefully matched against the Montessori group by gender, ethnicityrace, and their socio-economic status using free or reduced lunch availment as criterion. Both groups consisted of 54.7 females and 45.3 males 59.2 minority ethnic groups and 40.8 non-minority groups. About 5 of each group applied and met the criteria for a free or reduced lunch. Using GPAs to reflect overall grade point averages in high school along with grades in Math, Science, English and Social Studies, results showed that students who attended the Montessori program significantly had better performance compared to the Peer Control group in Math and Science however, there were no differences in their scores in English and Social Studies or in their GPAs. Other findings have shown that gender has a significant effect on ones GPA, as females performed better than males. In addition, students who belonged to non-minority groups performed better than minority students on their GPA, Math, Science, English and Social Studies subjects. Furthermore, the students who applied and were accepted in a free and or reduced lunch program had significantly lower GPAs compared to the students who were not (Clark et al, 1998).
Clark et al (1998) established a relationship between Montessori education and satisfactory performance on Math and Science, suggesting that attending a Montessori program from the age of three to eleven predicts higher test scores in Math and Science in high school at a future point that is, five to seven years after the students left the Montessori programs and enrolled in conventional public schools. Although there was no difference in GPA between the Montessori and Peer Control group, higher scores on certain subjects suggest that the Montessori experience had considerable impact on academic achievement. In addition, the similarities in GPAs and test scores in English and Social Studies, suggest that their families could possibly be better at simplifying the process for learning language than they are at strengthening the skills for math and science. Family environments may have a greater influence than the school environment in English and Social Studies outcomes. In contrast, the Montessori school environment may play a more potent role for outcomes in Mathematics and Science. This study lends credence to the idea that Montessori education has a positive long-term impact (Clark et al, 1998). In addition, the research findings support the assertions of Gable, Laycock, Maroney, Smith (1991) that students with emotional and behavioral disabilities may be successful in their transition to mainstream schools.
2.6 Effectiveness of a Standards-Based Curriculum
The foregoing section highlighted the similarities between the principles of optimal experience theory and a Montessori-based approach. With this as backdrop, the review of literature proceeds with an overview of a standards-based curriculum, to allow for a comparison with the Montessori-based approach. Educators emphasize that high standards are important in enhancing the quality of education at all student levels (Glaser Lin, 1993 Marzano Kendall, 1996). Compelled by this thrust, schools and districts ingeniously seek ways to develop a high-quality curriculum based on standards (Sandholtz, Martinez-Flores, Scribner, Ogawa, 2003). An essential starting point is a carefully structured curriculum framework one that reflects the goals and standards of the community and one for which the latter is willing to share accountability for (Tomlinson, 2000). To develop a standards-based curriculum requires revolutionary change in teaching and school management (Marzano Kendall, 1996). Therefore, prudence must be exercised in building the capacity of educators to effectively implement, supervise, and evaluate the school curriculum. Furthermore, the process of developing a standards-based curriculum should provide opportunities for policy review and updates (McIntosh, Vaughn and Zaragoza, 1991).
Educational standards are a set of knowledge, skills and abilities that gradually build up and serve as a foundation of quality education (Harris Carr, 1996 Weikart, 1981). Standards expressed what all students must know and be capable of doing yet should not be too overpowering as to take away the teachers discretion on the creative use of pedagogy to attain learning objectives techniques (Ravitch, 1995, 2001). Setting national standards allow students equal opportunity (Tomlinson, 2000). Pragmatically, in the absence of standards among schools, every teacher will set his own standards, complicating the demands of schools from their students. Apparently, standards provide a common framework for consistent comparison and assessment of instruction (Harris Carr, 1996 Howell Nolet, 2000 Marzano Kendall, 1996). Exams provided at a national level measure the progress of students towards attaining the same standards, allowing the provision of remedial assistance to those who have fallen below these expectations (Marzano Kendall, 1996). Harris and Carr (1996) further advocate that implementing standards is crucial as a common reference point, providing a well-defined framework for national testing. Standards can also provide focus for districts and schools for organizing the school curriculum, educational programs, and assessment plans (Tomlinson, 2000). In logical fashion, standards are useful for teachers, allowing them to effectively design the school curriculum based on the expectations brought forth by national standards and setting strategic directions for learning (Glaser Lin, 1993 Schmoker Marzano, 1999). In addition, students are able to fully understand what they should be doing to meet such standards. Finally, because standards represent shared expectations for learning, these allow parents to become more aware of the learning expectations asked of them and their children at each learning level (Marzano Kendall, 1996Sandholtz et al, 2003).
Marzano and Kendall (1996) state that educators and legislators in the United States strongly believe that the implementation of Goals 2000 Educate America Act in 1994 will initiate the movement towards achieving high standards for improving education. Since this time, the appeal for higher standards in education has come from different areas encompassing administrators, teachers, educational organizations, community leaders, parents, and students (Briars, 2000 Schmoker Marzano, 1999). According to Cushman (1990), the standards-based curriculum has achieved stability and is gradually transforming learning in classroom settings. In the United States, at least three-fourths of all the teachers who have worked with such standards for six years strongly believe that these did have a positive effect on their schools (Marzano Kendall, 1996). Ravitch (1995) further asserts that standards can, in fact, enhance students academic achievement, clearly defining teaching content and performance expectations from both teachers and students. The integration of standards into a schools curriculum is a complex and extensive imitative. Normally, the curriculum of a school provides the plan for instruction that point toward well-planned learning experiences and outcomes for students (Briars, 2000 Glaser Linn, 1993 ). In more recent years, the broadening of school curricula to include every element that may influence learning outcomes has been carried out (Howell Nolet, 2000 Tomlinson, 2000). The process of incorporating standards into the schools curriculum is comprised of four main steps creating a curriculum framework in a standards-based system context choosing a model of curriculum planning that further expresses the standards-based reform outlined in the curriculum framework developing capacity at all educational levels and supervision and evaluation of the curriculum (Apple, 2008).
Three primary principles are incorporated in the standards-based curriculum. Content standards describe what students should know or be able to do in different content areas. Benchmarks define what they should know or be able to do at a particular level. Moreover, performance standards raise awareness about what good performance looks like (Apple, 2008). Standards-based education engages students both in the process of learning because of clear performance expectations (Harris Carr, 1996). In a school that uses a standards-based curriculum, each stakeholder involved has responsibilities for standards compliance (Hallinger Murphy, 1986). Students are made responsible for their learning parents know what is expected from their children teachers provide a motivating learning environment administrators provide essential leadership and members of the community work to support the learning process (Harris Carr, 1996 Marzano Kendall, 1996).
There is great deal of difference between standards-based teaching and more traditional teaching approaches (Anyon, 2005). In standards-based education, teachers first identify the essential skills and knowledge that ought to be inculcated amongst students, and use these to focus instructional and evaluation activities (Harris Carr, 1996). Teachers also identify the standards for performance and share these with their students before lessons begin (Hallinger Murphy, 1986). The use of a standards-based curriculum has been met with both success and controversy (Ravitch, 2001). Numerous school districts have reported that the efforts for a standards-based school curriculum have resulted in success in achievement tests. Furthermore, members of the community have become more involved in activities of the school (Anyon, 2005 Harris Carr, 1996).
In contrast, there also have been negative perceptions about the standards-based approach for education (Apple, 2008). Teachers have become concerned with the copious standards attached to a single subject area or grade level (Whitty, 2002). Numerous teachers feel that they teach their lessons with the ultimate objective of students achieving and maintaining high test scores. There have also been issues about the lack of emphasis on certain areas, such as on critical thinking and problem solving (Ravitch, 1995). Several communities express concern that their urban schools are not receiving just treatment, and that higher educational standards cause higher failure rates (Harris Carr, 1996 Ravitch, 2001).
Wagner, Kutash, Duchnowski, Epstein and Sumi (2005) investigated the performance of students with emotional and behavioral disorders, and it was shown that it was shown that more than 6 out of every 10 children having EBD obtained the lowest scores in reading. Moreover, it has been suggested that curriculum-based measurement (CBM) has positive effects on the supervision and monitoring of the students enrolled in special education (Shin, Deno Espin, 2000).
2.7 Special Education as an Alternative for Students with Emotional Disabilities
Special education during the 19th century was primarily established for institutions that offered services for the deaf, blind, and mentally retarded individuals. By the 20th century, it was common to see, particularly in American schools, a rising number of students who possessed physical, mental, emotional and social disabilities (Hallahan, Bradley Danielson, 2009). By the 1970s, special education was made compulsory for students with disabilities in the categories that were legally recognized (Hallahan, et al, 2009). Aside from the United States, special education was also widely accepted in many European countries as it became a part of public education in developed nations (Hallahan Kauffman, 2003). Prior to the passing of federal laws many students with behavioral disabilities were deprived of education or were not sent to institutions (Hallahan et al, 2009 Rockwell, 1993). After federal law ordered schools to provide special education, the number of special students in the school population continued to increase, and fewer children were sent to institutions for special needs children (Hallahan Kauffman, 2003). A full understanding of the basic concepts of special education and the uniqueness of each individual will help teachers avoid inappropriate judgments and assumptions about special students, and obviate referring them to special education if they do not have a rational need for it (Kauffman, 2008).
Special education is intended for students with peculiar development needs (Kauffman, 2008). Under the current law, the condition of the student must significantly interfere his functioning and education for it to qualify as an emotional behavioral disability (Bradley, Danielson Hallahan, 2002). What comprises significant interference in functioning is based on judgment and has therefore become another point of contention (Hallahan et al, 2009). Despite controversies, special education has now been integrated into public education (Hallahan Kauffman, 2003). Moreover, students with emotional disabilities are qualified to take special education, since they are likely to be unsuccessful in mainstream educational system (Bradley et al, 2002 Hallahan et al, 2009).
The relationship that exists between special and general education has become a long-standing controversy (Oakland, 2004). There have been endless arguments regarding the role of education, and how education of children may further be enhanced (Ravitch, 1995, 2001). The promulgation of the No Child Left Behind Act has aggravated this contention (NCLB, 2002). During the past decades, students who received special education due to emotional disabilities have not taken national tests therefore, it was not possible for their performance to be compared with other students (NCLB, 2002). After the issuance of certain laws however, these students have been required to take similar tests. Supporters of this requirement strongly believe that majority of the students who have disabilities must be expected to attain passing or satisfactory grades in the same tests taken by nondisabled students (Oakland, 2004). In fact, these students pass these tests when provided with appropriate and adequate instruction (Blackorby Wagner, 1996 Bradley et al, 2002 Hallahan et al, 2009). On the other hand, those who do not agree with such laws believe that these are unfair and unreasonable. That is, even though students with disabilities should be expected fully realize their potential, they are anticipated to receive lower academic averages compared to students without disabilities (Malmgren, Edgar, Neel, 1998 Ruhl Berlinghoff, 1992).
During the 1970s, it was common to combine general and special education into one system, mainly because their differences were then hardly noticeable (Hallahan Kauffman, 2003). Moreover, a popular notion was that these two approaches to education will not effectual if they are remain compartmentalized rather, they should become one, single system that can serve all students (Kauffman, 2008). Those who were in doubt of the demand for a single, combined system pointed out that these are part of the public education therefore, they are already a part of a single system (Bateman and Linden, 1998). In addition, they believed that any effective element of a system should have its own identity, management, budget as well as staff members. Another suggestion was that special education should merely provide to general education ultimately obviating its need as general education imbibes its principles for students with disabilities (Hallahan Kauffman, 2003). Furthermore, protagonists of general education say that general education ought to be flexible in meeting needs of each and every student, without necessarily making special education imperative (Drasgow, Yell and Robinson, 2001). On the other hand, antagonists have drawn attention to the significance of special education, asserting its essence in serving even the most difficult disabilities, making it indispensable regardless of how general education evolves towards excellence (Drasgrow et al, 2001).
Onwards, in the early 21st century, a popular suggestion prescribes the effective collaboration of teachers of general and special education (Ruban and Olenchak, 2005), consulting each other to assess which teaching strategies will be most optimal for students with disabilities. However, even amidst the perceptible agreement with their collaboration and co-teaching, it has not been shown that it may work better than exclusive instruction from a special education teacher (Bradley et al, 2002). Those who doubt the approach acknowledge the importance of focused and intensive lessons that only a trained special education teacher can provide (Ruban and Olenchak, 2005).
In contrast, those who do not concur with this idea assert that special education cannot be considered as special because a good teacher for general education can adapt to the needs of students and can competently provide specialized instruction (Kauffman, 2008). Cook and Schirmer (2006) state that special education makes use of teaching techniques that are more individualized, meeting the individual needs of students and using dovetailed, unique methods that are not inherent in general education. Considering the wide array of perspectives on the value of special education, they concur nonetheless on the need for individualized instruction Koplewicz, 1996 Ruhl Berlinghoff, 1992). Teachers are usually expected to have a keen awareness of the performance and behavior of each student and adjust to these (Myles, Mehaffey and Roodbeen, 2005). When teachers do not meet such expectations, they are deemed ill fit for the profession.
A contradictory view is that teachers for special education focus more on the individual while general education teachers often focus on the students as a group (Morgan and Reinhart, 2001). According to this view, teachers for special education go beyond what general education teachers are capable of delivering, in terms of individualizing goals adapting pedagogical techniques and meeting the individual emotional and behavioral needs of special students (Lewis, Heflin DiGangi, 1991 Myles et al, 2004 Shores, Wehby, Jack, 1999).
In terms of curriculum and teaching methods, some students with disabilities take on a similar curriculum as that of general students, while their teachers make use of similar methods as those used in mainstream classrooms (Kauffman, 2008). Educational organizations have raised expectations of disabled students, believing that they are capable of learning the same curriculum and evaluated through the use of the same cognitive ability tests (Fuchs, Deno Mirkin, 1984 Marston, Mirkin Deno, 1984 Shores et al, 1999). As an offshoot of this proposal, there is strong pressure to align the general education curriculum with special education (Hallahan Kauffman, 2003 Kauffman, Epstein, and Cullinan, 1983).
According to Hallahan et al (2009), the direction of special education in the future has not yet been strongly established. One suggestion is that special education will entirely collapse and become an integral component of general education. This scenario is likely to happen in consideration of two points. First, is the idea that one educational approach is best for all if it is effective for one student and second is the idea that all students are expected to meet similar standards (Hallahan Kauffman, 2003). Yet another scenario depicts that only students with the most severe disabilities shall be included in special education curricula (Kauffman, 2008). This premise is anchored on the following considerations that only a minority has truly special needs which does not rationalize the excessive growth of this segment that it serves an overly large number of children with a substantial number not needing it and the fact that it consumes a large amount from the education budget (Kauffman, 2008).
Nonetheless, another probable future state of special education is its eventual acceptance as a form of education (Morgan and Reinhart, 2001). This is likely if concurrence is established for the following points that special education is mainly about individualized teaching and instruction that teachers for special education must possess special instructional skills that special education is worthy of the additional costs and the stark contrast between the academic achievement of students subjected under special education. Rockwell (1993) further states that to a considerable extent, special education is a monetary, budgetary issue however, from another perspective, it is also about the attitudes of society toward students with disabilities, and the opportunities that special education can accord to them (Hallahan Kauffman, 2003 Morgan Reinhart, 2001). Sense of fairness as well as the worth of education for children who have disabilities will always be the brunt of the issue in deciding on which educational approach is most apt for students with emotional and behavioral disorders (Hallahan et al, 2009 Kauffman, 2008).
2.8 The Needs of Students with Emotional Disabilities
Currently, students with emotional disabilities perform at least a year or more below their expected performance in a certain grade level (Kauffman, Epstein, and Cullinan, 1983). These students are at high risk for low grades across different subject areas, and for dropping out of school (Bradley et al, 2002 Rockwell, 1993 Wagner et al, 2005). In addition, children who have emotional, social and behavioral problems enter kindergarten with inadequate capacity to learn, since they are not unable to pay attention, remember information, or act in socially desirable ways in a school setting (Falik, 1969). Consequently, a rising number of children who are hard to manage in mainstream classrooms has significantly grown (Dodge Price, 1993). They are likely to exhibit poor social adjustment and increased behavioral problems, compared to their counterparts with other forms of disability (Bradley, Henderson and Menfore, 2004).
In the study of Malmgren, Edgar, Neel (1998), adolescents with emotional disabilities who dropped out of high school in Washington in 1985 were enlisted. Results of the longitudinal research indicate that after a decade, only 28.6 completed a post-secondary program compared to the 66.9 completion of regular students. Moreover, data gathered by Wagner, DAmico, Marder, Newman, Blackorby (1992) suggest that compared to employees without disabilities as well as those with other forms of disabilities, those with emotional disabilities have longer delays in seeking employment. They also have a lower percentage of employment after going out of school as well as an overall lower employment rate following graduation. Additionally, these individuals have a greater possibility of being employed part-time instead of full time and earn less compared to individuals without emotional disabilities (Wagner et al 1992).
The constant evaluation of the effectiveness of educational approaches for students with emotional disorders is essentially rooted on the concern for increasing their academic achievement (Kauffman et al, 1983 Lewis et al, 1991 Mooney, Epstein, Reid Nelson, 2003). With the implementation of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2002), improvements towards increased academic performance have been incorporated into school systems. For example, achievement tests must be taken by all students throughout the country (Coe, 1996). These changes, however, are not limited to the general education of regular students, as special education institutions must comply with the requisites of these educational reforms (Oakland, 2004). The measure for academic success of these students is no longer limited to the effectiveness of individualized education or special education programs rather, such focus is broadened and increasingly shifted to responsibility of general education to address the needs of this group, since they are required to take the same cognitive tests given to the normal student population (Wagner et al, 2005) this reinforces the need to build teachers competencies for addressing the needs of special students (Epstein, 1997).
Students with emotional and behavioral disorders demonstrate behavior that are dysfunction ally different from social or communal norms (Hatfield, 1991). These young individuals are in dire need of immediate remedial intervention to address their learning difficulties (Wagner et al, 1992). A clear definition of the behaviors considered deviant from the norm or the expected standards is warranted to solve issues on overidentification on one hand and underidentification on the other (Algozzine et al, 1991). Once these problem areas have been identified and conveyed in terms of directly observable behaviors, the duty of remediation becomes clearer (Lewis et al, 1991). Moreover, early identification of emotional problems is critical for the deployment of timely remedial interventions (McGrath, 2004). Emotional challenges persist over time, and present a greater challenge for behavioral change (Wagner et al, 1992).
McConaughty and Ritter (1995) state that for these goals to be effectively accomplished, school-based evaluation of students needs to serve certain purposes. First is to help teachers cope better with the needs of emotional and behavioral problems in regular classroom settings (Lewis et al, 1991 Myles et al, 2004 Shores et al, 1999) .
In addition, assessments must help students improve their behavior and school performance (Ruhl Berlinghoff, 1992) and to determine their eligibility for special education services (Marston et al, 1984). Furthermore, Greene (2001) asserts that the identification of emotionally disabled students should allow their referral to mental health services outside of the school setting if such is called for (Shores et al, 1999). However, the process of identification is complex and extensive, and requires the collaboration and involvement of professionals (Hocutt, 1996). This entails a complete review of the behavior of these students, along with an assessment of their emotional development and their environment (McGrath, 2004). Formal evaluation normally involves a thorough examination of students behaviors, individual needs and emotional responses (Hatfield, 1991 Trout, Nordness, Pierce, Epstein, 2003).
Frequently, children experiencing emotional disabilities are hyperactive and impulsive, precluding them a long attention span. Furthermore, they display behaviors of aggression which may cause injury to oneself and others (Miller, 1999, 2008). Their high levels of fear and anxiety predispose emotionally disabled students towards lack of interaction with others and evading situations which necessitate social interaction (Center, 1990 Morgan Reinhart, 2001). Aside from insufficient coping skills (Kauffman, 2008 Miller, 2008), emotionally disturbed children have difficulties in learning and therefore academically perform below satisfactory grade levels (Epstein, 1997). Normal children who do not experience emotional disturbances may exhibit similar behaviors manifested by emotionally disturbed children however, among the latter, dysfunctional behaviors are retained for a substantially long period of time (Papolos, 2002).
There has been growing recognition of the fact that emotionally disabled children and their families are in need of support, care, thorough management, and access to professional services (Nelson, 1992). Numerous communities along with their agencies and social institutions have been working towards developing such support services (Shores et al, 1999). The families of children who are experiencing emotional disabilities need to fully understand the condition of their children and learn ways to effectively work and communicate with them (Hatfield, 1991). Help is available from both mental health as well as educational professionals in public or private settings, and children must be provided with services that are specific to their unique, individual needs (Nelson, 1992 Mooney et al, 1983).
There are two primary performance areas which are impacted by emotional disorders, namely, academic and social performance, respectively. These are discussed in detail to gain a sincere, profound appreciation of the need to seek alternative educational approaches that show potential for effectual learning and social adaptation of these students.
Children with emotional disabilities experience academic difficulties virtually during their whole stay in school (Kauffman et al, 1983). One of the best predictors for failure and drop out is a lack of basic competencies such as math and reading (Scott Nelson, 1998). In fact, according to the Chesapeake Institute (1994), more than 50 of students with emotional and behavioral disabilities drop out of school. This is supported by the fact that learning disabilities co-occur with emotional disorders, thus resulting in challenges to academic learning (Coleman and Vaughn, 2000). As a logical consequence of these inadequacies, they are not given many experiences of success in school (Kauffman, 2008) and likely go through decreased instructional interactions with teachers (Epstein, 1997). As an outcome, they are less exposed to lessons and other educational content (Gable et al, 1991 Kuaffman, 2008). Due to their academic difficulties, many students with emotional disabilities are unable to finish high school (Ruhl Berlinghoff, 1992).
Students with emotional disabilities manifest difficulties in exhibiting social skills, which can perceptibly impede learning (Wagner et al, 1992 Wilen, 1998). They may be incapable of forming relations with other people who can significantly contribute to their success and independence, or can provide them with personal, financial and professional support (Epstein, 1997). If they have such difficulties and social interrelations do not exist, there is greater possibility for social dysfunctions which may be carried on until adulthood (La Greca, 1993).
It is critical though, that all instructions be based on the individual needs of each student. During the evaluation of the students current level of functioning and performance, there are two primary factors that must be addressed (Center, 1990). First, teachers must be able to find out whether the childs social skill problem is caused by a performance or a skill deficit. For example, a teacher can test the student by asking directly what he should do in a given situation and compare this response to the actual behavior of the student. If the student gives a correct response but is not able to display the correct behavior outside of the testing situation, his lack of social skills is more likely caused by a performance deficit (Wilen, 1998). On the other hand, if the student cannot come up with a response that is socially desirable, his social skill problem is likely caused by a skill deficit. When addressing skill deficits, more specific and direct instructions are necessary (Brolin, 2002). Meanwhile, a performance deficit calls for positively reinforced repetitions of the desirable behavior to increase the possibility of exhibiting the appropriate social response. In evaluation, it is very important to clearly identify the significant skill deficit areas (Wilen, 1998).
Once the evaluation has been completed, students must be provided with direct instructions about how to improve their social skills (Kauffman et al, 1983 McConaughy Ritter, 1986 Shores et al, 1999). At this point, teachers may opt to utilize a well-structured social skill curriculum or developing one by themselves. It important to note, however, that no single curriculum can satisfy the needs of all students. Therefore, it should be supported by lessons which can be developed or modified by the teachers themselves (Brolin, 2002 Gresham, 1997 Ogilvy, 1994). Lewis et al (1991) further assert that prompting the students to make use of their newly learned social skills is necessary to promote its maintenance.
Aside from academic performance outcomes, it is also necessary for students with emotional disabilities to improve their social skills (Mooney et al, 2003). Gresham (1997) argued that an emotional disorder is practically defined by a lack of social capability. Social competence refers to the capacity of an individual to establish and maintain positive relationships with his fellow classmates and teachers, acquire social acceptance from peers, create satisfying friendships, and prevent or stop any negative or unhelpful social relations (Gresham, 2000). Students with emotional disorders have greater chances of demonstrating introverted, inconsistent, ineffective or generally negative patterns of social communication and interaction. More often, their social behavior leads them to primarily respond with annoyance and anger in their social interactions, eventually leading to rejection (Shores et al, 1999).
Moreover, ongoing peer rejection place these students at a higher risk for unfavorable academic, social and mental health outcomes (Gresham 1997, 2000). The most possible short-term outcomes of ineffective and unhappy peer relationships can include antisocial behavior, increased aggression, absenteeism, low level of academic achievement, depression, substance abuse as well as dropping out of school (La Greca, 1993 Kupersmidt, 2003). Possible long-term outcomes may include unpleasant employment experiences, criminal behavior and a poor marital life (Nelson, 1992 Ogilvy, 1994). In further studies of students who were chosen to be at risk for emotional disorders, it was shown that unsatisfying social experiences do not only lead to a decreased level of positive social interactions these can also lower levels of academic and task achievement. In addition, the absence of opportunities for students to engage themselves in constant friendship behaviors also has consequences for the social and moral development of these young individuals (Newcomb and Bagwell, 1995).
Poor acceptance from fellow students is an outcome of a students behavior as well as the social system in which they relate and work together (La Greca, 1993). A higher level of unity within the classroom setting will create a meaningful environment where students are accepted and are allowed to comfortably change their behavior. The teaching of moral values that support social relations including the acceptance of differences, concern for others as well as respect and fairness should be an important part of this process (McGrath, 2004). Moreover, it has been empirically demonstrated that transforming the social environment of a classroom can positively influence social behavior and peer acceptance (Ogilvy, 1994).
It is strongly recommended that children and students be provided with an environment that is emotionally safe and secure which can prevent any form of violence and allows them to become effective learners. Moreover, such environment should incorporate the development of emotional and social skills within each aspect of their life (McGrath, 2004). Such skills include problem solving, coping, management of conflicts, as well as understanding and dealing with feelings (Patterson et al, 1989 Rutherford, 1996). Gaining emotional and social skills allows children to learn from adults initiate positive relations express their thoughts and feelings and handle their frustrations which in aggregate positively influence their cognitive learning (La Greca, 1993).
Parents and families play an important role in determining the development as well as the outcomes of their children not just in academic performance but in their social and emotional functioning as well (McGrath, 2004). Relationships with parents which are earlier established provide a strong foundation on which ones social ability as well as peer relations is created. Parents who show support for a positive emotional development of their children often and positively interact with their children show consideration for their needs, desires and feelings show interest in their activities have respect for their opinions show pride in their achievements and extend support in times of anxiety and failure (Jordan, 1996). Such encouragement significantly increases the possibility that children will develop early emotional capability better preparation for entering school and be less likely to display behavioral problems both at home and in school (McGrath, 2004). This is the main reason why majority of preschool programs are focused on the involvement of parents as well as parenting education (Jordan, 1996 Lonigan Whitehurst, 1998).
In addition, essential to a school system for emotionally disabled students are skills that directly enhance their performance and quality of life (Kavale, et al, 2004). Performance skills do not only focus on interpersonal relationships and community interaction these also include skills that will allow these young individuals to seek assistance become independent learners consistently respond to changes in their environment succeed in their employment and careers become responsible and adequately functioning adults and ultimately live productive and satisfying lives (Rutherford, 1996).
The need to increase the students independence in learning has been often overlooked (Forness, 1996). Students with emotional disabilities may not be involved in their learning due to several issues such as lack of self-awareness absence of the feeling of belonging to a school as well as constant failures and mistakes in school (Kavale et al, 2004). Instructional strategies involve the control, management and monitoring of oneself as well as skills for problem solving and knowledge acquisition. Primarily, teachers should teach their students skills that promote responsibility, and initiative in making decisions concerning their development. Such strategies have shown great promise in improving the learning and sense of independence of students with emotional disabilities (Gable et al, 1991).
There exists a strong relationship between behavioral problems during childhood and law-breaking habits and criminal behavior in adulthood (Gable et al, 1991). If such behaviors are left untreated, conduct problems at the early stages of ones life may place these children at a high risk for emotional and social problems, low levels of achievement, school discontinuance and failure, and eventually delinquency, in later life (McGrath, 2003). Research has also shown that a childs ability to learn is supported by a sense of stability and security and healthy relationships with their families and communities (Hatfield, 1991 Trout et al, 2003 Wagner et al, 192). In general, children who have poor relationship skills have a greater possibility of having less satisfactory, less independent, less successful and unhappier lives (Blackorby and Wagner, 1996).
The need to demonstrate academic progress every year and achieve high standards for students has placed majority of schools under pressure in providing effective teaching practices (Dodge and Price, 1994). For students who have emotional disabilities, increasing the opportunities to attain success both in school and in life entail effectual strategies towards the improvement of academic performance and overall behavior (Rutherford, 1996). Over time, students with emotional disabilities have not had much success in attaining skills that support high levels of academic and social achievement (Patterson, DeBeryshe and Ramsey, 1989) thus, the negative outcomes in school and in life. Similar to the study of Malmgren et al (1998), Epstein, Kinder and Bursuck (1989) have found that students with emotional disabilities constantly achieved below what is expected from them in academics. In another study of the performance of students having emotional disorders, Trout, Nordness, Pierce and Epstein (2003) reported that an overwhelming majority of such students had low academic performance. In addition, none of them performed above what was expected of their age or grade levels.
Given the foregoing challenges which confront students with emotional disorders and their families, the problem is aggravated by teachers generally not having a comprehensive understanding of students with emotional disorders and knowhow of the effective strategies for meeting such needs (Epstein et al, 1989). Inadequate teacher training, teacher preparation programs, and research on classroom settings involving these students are prevalent problems (Ruhl and Berlinghoff, 1992). Therefore, teachers must further enhance their classroom strategies, particularly through the use of certified pedagogical techniques (Shriner and Wehby, 2004). The performance outcomes of students with disabilities, for the most part, relies on the degree to which the school setting is conducive to such performance (Elkind, 1976 Grieshaber Ryan, 2005).). Thus, educators are confronted with higher expectations on performance concurrent to responding to the challenge of responding to the needs of emotionally disabled students and increasing their academic achievement (Dansereau, 1996).
2.9 Summary and Transition
The review of related literature discussed the similarities between Montessoris and Csikszentmihalyis (1990) optimal experience theory. These frameworks shall be referred to in explaining the results of the current study. Lillard (2005) asserts that a well-organized environment and a carefully planned school structure, allow enhanced social and academic performance of students. Moreover, Lillard (2005) reported that the constant use of apt tools and materials that foster concentration among children has resulted into the advancement of certain skills such as reading and writing in cursive at a very early age. Results from the study of Dohrman (2003) on public Montessori schools showed positive outcomes on the implementation of the Montessori curriculum such as higher grades in standardized tests on certain subjects, including science and math. Furthermore, Cunningham and Stanovich (1997) state that children who are trained in reading and language at an early age are likely to gain more long-term advantages such as motivation and enthusiasm to learn. Gettman (2001) also mentioned that the freedom of choice that Montessori schools encourage results in better academic and psychological outcomes.
Mervis (2004) states that it is often difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of school programs and that the positive outcomes concluded about Montessori schools may not be completely consistent. For example, previous studies that resulted in positive outcomes in support of Montessori education, are ambivalent as to whether such results are brought about by the program or by the high quality of their teachers. Furthermore, Lillard (1996) points out the ambiguity in accrediting a Montessori school. There are no consistent tests or standards, and there is a lack in definitive criteria for accreditation (Lillard, 1996).Moreover, researchers rely on the Montessori label, assuming that it is an appropriate case for evaluating program effectiveness. Lillard (1996) further suggests that in a number of studies concerning Montessori schools, only a small sample of students were gathered. The researches are conducted only for a short period of time and thus the positive outcomes of system cannot be fully ascertained. Longitudinal studies are thus encouraged.
The use of standards on a school curriculum has become a widely known option in improving the learning and achievement of students (Apple, 2008). A standards-based curriculum allows teachers, students and parents to develop a keen awareness of the requirements for student performance at level. Anyon (2005) further implies that educational standards serve as the primary foundation for a schools curriculum and all programs and teaching strategies revolve around them. Schools which use a standards-based curriculum have achieved higher scores in achievement tests, and have resulted in increased participation from the communities in which they operate.
However, according to Whitty (2002), because a standards-based curriculum is focused on educational standards, it has become a growing concern for their teachers that their only purpose for teaching is to comply with standards as attested to by high student test scores. Certain areas have also been overlooked such as the development of essential skills including problem solving and critical thinking. Furthermore, because the bar of excellence is constantly raised in pegging higher educational standards higher, failure and drop out rates are observed as well necessitating better teaching approaches.
Children who have emotional disabilities have been enrolled in institutions of mainstream education. In the studies of Dohrman (2003) as well as that of Clark et al (1998), the academic and psychological performance outcomes of students with emotional disorders who have attended a Montessori institution were evaluated. Findings suggest positive results for such children, including outcomes in math and science. Moreover, they have improved their social skills despite their behavioral and emotional disadvantages. However, it has also been suggested that future research designs ought to consider the influence of parents of students who have emotional disabilities. Parental influence has been singled out as major determinant of students performance outcomes.
In contrast, Bernstein and Borchardt (1991) showed that Montessori education was not completely successful at improving the academic outcomes of children with disabilities. There was a small growth in visual skills however, other aspects were overlooked. They have become comfortably accustomed to a Montessori school setting, though the teaching methods and strategies were not able to reach out to each student. In summary, the Montessori curriculum may prove itself useful to a large student population, though other students such as those with emotional and behavioral disabilities may do better in schools with more specialized systems. The latter may be able to more consistently address the unique needs of these students.
The following chapter shall present the methodological approaches that shall be used in the research, clearly explaining the research approach and design, sampling, instrumentation, procedure, and methods of data analysis that have been utilized.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment