Book Review | Mira Debs’s Diverse Families, Desirable Schools by Katie Dulaney

Book details: Debs, M. (2019). Diverse Families, Desirable Schools: Public Montessori in the Era of School Choice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Hardcover, 240 pages, $30.49

Mira Debs’ recent book, Diverse Families, Desirable Schools (2019), is a welcome addition to the small but growing field of Montessori research (Marshall, 2017). Debs, who currently serves as the Executive Director of Yale University’s Education Studies Program, argues that while public Montessori programs have the rare potential of attracting a racially and economically diverse applicant pool, their recruitment style and school structures disproportionately cater to white families who self-identify as “true believers” in the Montessori method. As a former Montessori educator and current teacher trainer, I will appraise and critique Deb’s arguments in this review. Because Debs opens her book with some historical background and explanation of the Montessori method, I will do the same. I will then consider the methods of her research as well as her assessment of four particularly harmful structures and practices common in Montessori schools today. AJE Forum readers with an interest in school desegregation and/or progressive models of education may find this text helpful.

A primary strength of the text was Debs’ brief overview of Montessori education. For educators who are unfamiliar, Montessori programs derive their philosophy from the work of 19^th century Italian physician and educator, Maria Montessori. High fidelity programs include a hands-on, interdisciplinary curriculum; a deep respect for nature and practical life skills; and a simultaneous commitment to communal and individual development within multi-age classrooms. Montessori’s student-centric methodology is intended to allow children to progress through learning opportunities at their own pace. This regard for a wide range of learners allows classrooms, which are already diverse in age, to be diverse in ability. Existing at both the elementary and secondary levels, Montessori schools were found almost exclusively in the private sector until the second half of the twentieth century. Today, Montessori is the most publicly available progressive pedagogy; it is these public Montessori schools that Debs addresses in her text (p. 10).   

Mira Debs helped start a Montessori charter school in New Haven, Connecticut, in 2014. Her efforts to open this school and her research for this book informed one another. From 2013 to 2015, Debs collected qualitative data (in the form of ethnographic observations and interviews) from two public Montessori schools in Hartford, both of which were created to help desegregate the city. Opened as magnet schools roughly a decade earlier, both schools attracted racially and socioeconomically diverse student populations. Debs sought to understand how the wide array of families responded to the marketing and recruitment efforts of both schools and, upon enrolling, how these diverse families assessed their “fit” with Montessori.

Writing mainly for policymakers and school leaders, Debs skillfully situates her study on what she considers the problematic tension between two deeply held commitments of Montessori educators: “(1) staying faithful to Montessori [philosophy] and (2) adapting the method to the needs of the individual child” (p. 25). Debs’ research revealed that “Working-class Black and Latinx families rarely identified as believers, but they were happy with the school … They were satisfied with their child’s educational progress, but the fact that the school used Montessori methods did not mean so much to them” (p. 93). Middle-class and upper-class families of color, however, frequently reported feeling “conflicted by” the Montessori education their children received. Drawing attention to the ways in which biases impact school choice, Debs argues that policymakers and districts are responsible for addressing mechanisms that alienate certain families from public Montessori schools. 

Debs’ research reveals four ways that the marketing efforts of public Montessori schools caters toward white families and alienates minoritized families. First, when administrators and teachers are educating the community in an effort to market their school, they oftentimes speak about who would be a “good fit” for their schools. The intention behind this harkens back to Montessori philosophy; because the Montessori method begins at age three, Montessori primary and secondary programs tend to seek students who have prior Montessori experience. Montessori educators oftentimes argue that for a primary or secondary program to have high fidelity, a majority of its students ought to be coming from Montessori preschools. Many preschools, however, charge tuition and may only operate for half-days; if public Montessori teachers speak in terms of students who are “good fits” and really mean students who have attended these privileged preschools, they are effectively distancing families without expendable income and/or time. Debs reminds policymakers and school leaders that public schools are mandated to serve everyone, whether or not they are philosophically the “best fit” for any given school. Her repeated refrain is: the school has a duty to fit the child; the child does not have a duty to fit the school. In effect, Montessori schools must contend with the bias they carry toward families whose children did not begin Montessori at age three.

An additional way Montessori schools tend to cater toward white families is by discussing abstract learning goals rather than concrete academic goals. Many minoritized families that Debs interviewed indicated that they were just as, if not more, concerned about the academic gains their children would make as the social and emotional ones. Students from wealthy families with lots of cultural capital have the privilege of concerning themselves with progressive components like practical life skills, arts education, and field studies. If schools emphasize these components of their programs at the cost of highlighting their academic merit, minoritized families may feel uneasy about enrolling.

Third, Debs points out that the Parent Teacher Organization (PTO) at both Montessori schools she observed eventually became so professionalized that they unintentionally alienated minoritized families. Parents who assumed positions in the PTO were given a laptop and made decisions via email throughout the day. Families without an internet connection or without schedules flexible enough to regularly respond to PTO business weren’t represented on the board. The parents who led the PTO tended to sign up for many volunteer opportunities; by and large, they were white parents. The PTO devoted its efforts, therefore, toward concerns that were unique to higher-income families. For example, the PTO at Birch, one of the schools Debs drew her interviews from, devoted great energy to revamping the enrichment program at the school; parents wanted students to have access to a Suzuki strings program, Spanish classes, and a less sugary breakfast. According to Debs, families of color were far more concerned with “closing the achievement gap between students, providing free summer school, and maintaining affordable housing in their rapidly gentrifying neighborhood” (p. 145). Again, Debs highlights how unintentional this was; pathways of communication between families described as “true believers” and families with a “conflicted fit” weren’t as functional as they should have been.

Lastly, while Debs appreciates that charter schools may have the curricular latitude to implement higher-fidelity Montessori programs than schools that are more fully under the jurisdiction of local school districts, some do not provide free lunch or transportation to their students. Debs is quick to highlight how these exclusionary practices undermine the school’s ability to attract a diverse student body (p. 76). Debs is no enemy of charter schools; after all, she started one herself. She does insist, however, that Montessori programs who choose to operate under a charter offer the same public services that traditional schools are required by law to provide.

Though Debs’ study draws needed attention to these marginalizing practices, it overlooks the perspective of teachers and teacher trainers. This is amplified by the fact that Debs herself does not have a background as a Montessori teacher; as such, she has extremely limited knowledge of the lived realities of the teachers who are implicated in her study. Though she employs ethnographic strategies in her interviews with parents and administrators, she sidelines an entire group of stakeholders in a way that feels ironically unequal. In addition, Debs’ argument would be strengthened by offering further historical context for the problems she identifies. She doesn’t explore, for instance, what equity gains have been made since Montessori first entered the public sector fifty years ago, nor does she consider how training programs have evolved to address equity concerns in their work with teachers. From the teacher and teacher-trainer perspective, these are noticeable oversights.

Debs ends her book with a helpful appendix containing suggestions for talking about race, class, and bias in schools; improving access to and outreach from Montessori schools; amplifying cultural diversity and student support within schools; and advocating for diverse learning communities. AJE Forum readers with an interest in equity practices may benefit from consulting this appendix. With the release of this book, Debs has initiated a frank and necessary conversation about the role of equity within Montessori education. I appreciate Debs’ ability to outline the challenging work that lays ahead of the Montessori community while simultaneously reminding readers of the value of Montessori education.

Katie Dulaney is a Ph.D. student in the Educational Theory and Policy program at Penn State University. She holds a Master of Arts in Teaching from Teachers College, Columbia University and a secondary teaching credential from the American Montessori Society. Prior to beginning her studies at Penn State, she taught middle school English and history for six years in her home state of North Carolina. Katie is interested in the history of American education and how it should or does inform policy and in increasing student access to public Montessori programs, particularly in rural areas.

Reference

Marshall, C. Montessori education: A review of the evidence base. npj Science Learn 2,11 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-017-0012-7