leadership for public montessori education in rural and remote settings

Running Head: RURAL AND REMOTE MONTESSORI LEADERSHIP

Leadership for Public Montessori Educationin Rural and Remote Settings

Amanda FranzCarbondale, Colorado, USA

Submitted to:

Adjunct Faculty Mentor: Kathryn Rossand

Academic Dean: Dr. Philip Snow Gang

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment for the DegreeMaster of Education

Endicott College - TIES Partnership

April 2015

This document follows the APA Manual of Style

Edited by: Carmen Montgomery

RURAL AND REMOTE MONTESSORI LEADERSHIP

AbstractWithin the public Montessori community, most research has related to schools in

urban areas. This thesis explores public Montessori programs in rural and remote areas.

This paper addresses current scientific thought, including systems thinking and

cosmogenesis. Next, this thesis explores educational theory—particularly, Montessori

education and rural education—and leadership theory with regard to new scientific

thought. This paper also explores neurophenomenology, one approach to research, a

methodology that acknowledges both objective and subjective realities. Finally, this paper

examines objective data and shares subjective experiences regarding public Montessori

programs in rural and remote settings.

Schools in rural and remote settings represent approximately 25% of all public

Montessori programs in the United States. They are an important part of the larger

Montessori community. These rural and remote schools have advantages and challenges

that schools in urban and suburban areas do not. Perhaps rural and urban Montessori

leaders could benefit from more contact with each other and the chance to exchange ideas

and experiences.

2


ContentsAbstract................................................................................................................................................... 2

Contents.................................................................................................................................................. 3

Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 5

Chapter One: The Universe Story.................................................................................................... 6Old Stories.......................................................................................................................................................... 6

Western society’s old story..........................................................................................................................................7Effects of the old story...................................................................................................................................................9

The Emergence of New Stories................................................................................................................. 11Relationships...................................................................................................................................................................12Creativity stems from relationships......................................................................................................................13Destruction also leads to creativity.......................................................................................................................14Self-making: Autopoiesis........................................................................................................................................... 15Subtle influence..............................................................................................................................................................16Uncertainties...................................................................................................................................................................17Our new story: The universe story........................................................................................................................17

Human Potential............................................................................................................................................ 18Nature as humanity’s guide......................................................................................................................................20The Great Work..............................................................................................................................................................24

Chapter Two: My Background....................................................................................................... 25

Chapter Three: Education in the Universe Story.....................................................................28Maria Montessori.......................................................................................................................................... 28The Universe Story and Montessori Education...................................................................................30

Relationships in Montessori environments.......................................................................................................30Relationships lead to creativity...............................................................................................................................32Destruction can lead to creativity..........................................................................................................................34Autopoiesis in Montessori environments...........................................................................................................34Subtle influence in the classroom..........................................................................................................................36Uncertainties in education........................................................................................................................................37Children and the universe story.............................................................................................................................37

Human Consciousness................................................................................................................................. 39Nature as the educator’s guide................................................................................................................................40Humanity’s cosmic task..............................................................................................................................................41

Montessori Schools in America’s Public Sector..................................................................................42Education in Rural America....................................................................................................................... 44

Place based education as an option in rural America...................................................................................48Relationships in rural education............................................................................................................................49

Chapter Four: A New View of Leadership..................................................................................51The Old Way of Leading.............................................................................................................................. 51Leading in a New World.............................................................................................................................. 52

Relationships in leadership......................................................................................................................................52Leaders’ relationships can bring forth creativity............................................................................................53Creativity also comes from a group’s chaos......................................................................................................54

3


Autopoiesis in human-based organizations......................................................................................................54Subtle influence in leadership.................................................................................................................................56Leading with uncertainties.......................................................................................................................................57

Thoughts on Montessori Leadership......................................................................................................57Freedom with responsibility....................................................................................................................................58Leader as observer.......................................................................................................................................................60Respect for each group member.............................................................................................................................61

Leaders in the New Universe Story......................................................................................................... 62

Chapter Five: A Research Approach............................................................................................64Neurophenomenology................................................................................................................................. 64

Autopoiesis.......................................................................................................................................................................64Structural coupling.......................................................................................................................................................65Autopoiesis, applied to human groups................................................................................................................66Neurophenomenology as a way to approach autopoiesis in human societies...................................66Why neurophenomenology?....................................................................................................................................68

My First Excursion into Neurophenomenology..................................................................................68Setting and characters.................................................................................................................................................69Material presented........................................................................................................................................................70Third-person observations.......................................................................................................................................71First-person experience.............................................................................................................................................79

Reflection on Neurophenomenological Research..............................................................................82

Chapter Six: Putting it together..................................................................................................... 83Public Montessori Schools in Rural and Remote Areas...................................................................83My Experience in Public Montessori Schools, in Both Large Cities and Remote Towns.......86Interviews with Leaders of Public Montessori schools in rural areas and remote towns...87

Ross Montessori School, Carbondale, Colorado: Sonya Hemmen............................................................88Redwood Coast Montessori, Arcata, California: Bryan and Terri Little................................................93Barron Area Montessori, Barron, Wisconsin: Nancy Weise.......................................................................99

Observations and Reflections.................................................................................................................103

Chapter Seven: Reflections and Possibilities.........................................................................106Reflecting on my TIES experience.........................................................................................................106Possibilities for the future....................................................................................................................... 108

References......................................................................................................................................... 110

4


IntroductionThis paper examines the status of public Montessori schools in rural and

geographically remote areas. While there has been an increase in the amount of research

about Montessori education in recent years, that research has almost exclusively focused

on Montessori environments in urban and suburban areas. This paper contributes to the

Montessori research base regarding Montessori education in rural and remote areas,

particularly in the public sector.

During graduate studies with The Institute for Educational Studies through Endicott

College, my classmates, professors, mentor, and I have studied dialogue, radical educational

principles, systems thinking, Montessori education, the story of the universe, leadership

theory, and a research approach called neurophenomenology. For this thesis, I have also

studied rural education in America and Montessori education in the public sector. Although

these topics seem to vary widely, each idea has flowed from one to the next. Each of these

ideas is interrelated with the others, and this paper examines those correlations.

5


Chapter One: The Universe Story“The story of the universe has been told in many ways by the peoples of Earth, from the

earliest periods of Paleolithic development and the Neolithic villages communities to the

classical civilizations that have emerged in the past five thousand years”

(Swimme & Berry, 1992, p. 1)

This chapter explores stories that our culture has shared over the past five hundred

years or so, as well as a new comprehensive story that is emerging. This chapter addresses

various subjects, including dialogue, chaos, systems thinking, ecology, and the story of the

universe. Although these topics seem to vary widely, each idea is interrelated with the

others, and this paper examines those correlations.

Old StoriesHumans have been telling stories for thousands of years. We tell explicit stories

throughout each day – to our colleagues, to our families around the dinner table, and to our

children before bed. According to professor of biology Christopher Uhl (2013, ch. 7, sec. 1),

we also tell implicit stories within our culture. Uhl says that our culture-based story shapes

our thoughts and behaviors, and that most of us are not fully aware of our cultural stories’

roles in our lives. We live within these stories so much that we do not notice them (Uhl,

2013).

Physicist David Bohm (1996) categorizes our cultural stories as “assumptions.”

Bohm says that difficulties in communication often stem from the fact that “everybody has

different assumptions and opinions. They are basic assumptions – not merely superficial

assumptions – such as assumptions about the meaning of life; about your own self-interest,

6


your country’s interest, or your religious interest; about what you really think is important”

(p. 8). In Seven Life Lessons of Chaos, English professor John Briggs and physicist David Peat

also explore the differences between assumptions and truth:

Often enough, habits of mind, the supposed certainties of our “knowledge” about the world, produce distortions and deceptions about reality. More important, the opinions and facts that constitute our conditioning may end up obscuring a deeper authenticity and “truth” about our individual experience of being in the world. (1999, p. 20)

Uhl (2013) compares our current Western culture to the culture of ancient Greece. Today,

we call the Greeks’ stories “Greek mythology.” But to many people within the ancient Greek

culture, these stories were not myths; they were reality. Similarly, says Uhl, our cultural

stories do not seem like stories; they seem like truths. I will now look at some of the stories

we humans have lived in during modern times.

Western society’s old story.The common current worldview in Western civilization, according to Uhl, is based

on the assumption that Earth was created for humans, and that humans must struggle to

achieve goodness. This old story leads to separation: “Implicit in this story is the belief that

man is separate—apart from and above—the rest of creation” (2013, ch. 7, sec. 1, para. 6).1

This story of separation, according to Uhl, began with Aristotle’s worldview of dualism:

Everything in the world, according to Aristotle, was either one way or the other: black or white, true or not true, superior or inferior. … It seems that we have been socialized, to varying degrees, to believe that humans are superior to nature, that rich is superior to poor, that reason is superior to intuition, and so on. (2013, ch. 7, sec. 1, para. 10)

1 The use of the word “man” here is intentionally not gender-inclusive. Uhl used “man” intentionally, and I choose to keep Uhl’s language in its original form. I explore the use of the word “man” in the following paragraph.

7


Uhl furthers his thoughts to add that economism—the view that “success is tightly linked to

the accumulation of money and possessions”—extends from our dualistic separations

(2013, ch. 7, sec. 1, para. 16).

Uhl also points to Western culture’s patriarchic view of society. With this dualistic

worldview, “it comes as no surprise that in our story the emergence of man is the capstone

event in the history of the cosmos” (2013, ch. 7, sec. 1, para. 6). Uhl asserts that, in our old

story, man’s role is to control and dominate Earth, including females.

Similarly to Uhl, cosmologist Brian Swimme and historian Mary Evelyn Tucker

believe our old story originally came from scientific thinkers. According to Swimme and

Tucker (2011), humans’ behavioral freedom, curiosity, and symbolic language created a

new level of consciousness—symbolic consciousness. With this new level of consciousness,

humans spread around Earth with various cultural inventions helping them adapt to all

environments. Then, humans settled in agricultural civilizations. In these civilizations,

humans created more symbols—written codes.

With these written codes, early scientists found a new way to study Earth and the

Universe. According to Swimme and Tucker, “Galileo was the first scientist to adopt and

develop [the deterministic materialism] perspective” (2011, p. 103). Deterministic

materialism had three basic tenets: “that all things in the universe were composed of tiny

particles of matter; that these particles were purely material, without any degree of

subjectivity; and that these particles moved according to fixed, mathematical laws”

(Swimme & Tucker, 2011, p. 103). Isaac Newton built upon Galileo’s reasoning and

developed equations for motion. Over time, “we modern humans became so fascinated with

8


the power of these mathematical equations that we took these abstractions for reality”

(Swimme & Tucker, 2011, p. 98).

During the same timeframe that Galileo, Newton, and other scientists were working

on laws of matter, philosopher René Descartes stated that matter was inert and passive,

and that the mind only exists within humans (Swimme & Tucker, 2011). Humans think and

feel; animals, other living things, and the rest of the Universe only acted like machines.

Modern humans transformed these abstract ideas into machines to satisfy human

desires. Swimme and Tucker say, “Modern industrial humans broke with the past. They did

not seek to commune with nature, or to revere it as divine gift. They sought to transform

the world” (2011, p. 99). In the viewpoint of modern humans, if the Universe is a machine,

we humans can use it as we see fit. In their efforts to create a better world, “modern

humans transformed the planet into a bundle of resources” (Swimme & Tucker, 2011, p.

99).

Physicist Fritjof Capra (1996) sums up Western civilization’s old story thus:

This paradigm consists of a number of entrenched ideas and values, among them the view of the universe as a mechanical system composed of elementary building blocks, the view of the human body as a machine, the view of life in society as a competitive struggle for existence, the belief in unlimited material progress to be achieved through economic and technological growth, and—last, but not least—the belief that a society in which the female is everywhere subsumed under the male is one that follows a basic law of nature. (p. 6)

Effects of the old story.Having described various authors’ thoughts about the old worldview of Western

civilization, what are some of the effects of this old story? Cosmologist Thomas Berry

points to the old worldview as the underlying cause for the present state of Earth, stating

that humans have lived with “a mode of consciousness that has established a radical

9


discontinuity between the human and other modes of being and the bestowal of all rights

on the humans” (1999, p. 4).

Swimme and Tucker (2011) assert that humans have greatly affected Earth:

Our commitment to the control of the natural world has led to the withering of Earth’s ecosystems. Life on land and in the oceans is collapsing. The current degradation of Earth is a cataclysmic, biological destruction more catastrophic than anything that has occurred in the past sixty-five million years. (p. 106)

Uhl (2013) also gives examples of the destruction of Earth. He explains that increased

carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are due to human use of carbon-based oil

and gas. These higher levels of carbon dioxide lead to global warming, melting of the ice of

the Arctic Ocean, pine beetles wiping out forests of the American West, and edges of the

Amazon Rainforest becoming savanna. Uhl points out that soils are becoming depleted of

their natural nutrients and eroding faster than they are being created by natural means, as

well. Uhl also says that human population has increased dramatically in recent years, and

consumption of resources has also increased. We can further study the impact of

population and consumption increases by looking at “ecological footprints.” Uhl describes a

person’s ecological footprint as “the area of productive land and sea necessary to produce

all the things that s/he consumes each year plus the space necessary to absorb the waste

that s/he produces” (2013, ch. 6, sec. 2, para. 2). Uhl states that the current global

ecological footprint of humanity is larger than Earth’s productive acreage by 50 percent.

In sum, our old story is based on old information and cultural assumptions. Our

thoughts and actions, based on the old story, have led to a separation from Earth and the

cosmos. “The other-than-human modes of being are seen as having no rights. They have

10


reality and value only through their use by the human” (Berry, 1999, p. 4). Uhl sums up

Earth’s changes because of our old story thus:

Just as a human being who is experiencing stress slowly sickens, so it is that Earth now sickens, suffering under the weight of humankind’s expanding ecological footprint. All of this is occurring, in no small part, because our old story—grounded in speciesism, control, rampant consumption, hyper-individualism, and incessant growth—is no longer working. (part III, para. 2)

The Emergence of New StoriesOur culture’s actions, based on our old story, are not working well for the health of

Earth. The old story is based on mechanistic science from hundreds of years ago and the

assumptions humans made based on that science. Newer science tells a new story.

According to Swimme and Tucker (2011), modern humans know more scientific truths

than ever, and this opens us up to a grand story of the universe:

We know that the observable universe emerged 13.7 billion years ago, and we now live on a planet orbiting our Sun, one of the trillions of stars in one of the billions of galaxies in an unfolding universe that is profoundly creative and interconnected. With our empirical observations expanded by modern science, we are now realizing that our universe is a single immense energy event that began as a tiny speck that has unfolded over time to become galaxies and stars, palms and pelicans, the music of Bach, and each of us alive today. The great discovery of contemporary science is that the universe is not simply a place, but a story—a story in which we are immersed, to which we belong, and out of which we arose. (p. 1)

Today, according to Swimme and Tucker, many humans struggle to comprehend or even

begin thinking about these truths and our new story because the new story challenges

many of our long-held beliefs (or assumptions) and it could change our role on Earth. Along

with the idea that the universe is dynamic, Berry (1999) points to the unity of this

universe:

In reality there is a single integral community of the Earth that includes all its component members whether human or other than human. In this community every being has its own role to fulfill, its own dignity, its inner spontaneity. … Every being enters into communion with other beings. … So too every being has rights to be recognized and revered. (p. 4)

11


I now dive deeper into some of the scientific insights that relate to our new story.

Relationships.“Even from the first moments, our universe moved toward creating relationships”

(Swimme & Tucker, 2011). Galileo, Newton, Descartes, and other thinkers of their times

focused on matter and isolated objects in order to study them. Modern scientists, on the

other hand, have realized the importance of relationships among objects and everything’s

interdependence. Capra’s (1996) name for the new paradigm is deep ecology: “Deep

ecological awareness recognizes the fundamental interdependence of all phenomena and

the fact that, as individuals and societies, we are all embedded in (and ultimately

dependent on) the cyclical processes of nature” (p. 6).

Capra (1996) describes our new story in relation to a paradigm shift within various

sciences. These scientific discoveries mostly came about during the 1920s. Capra states

that biologists, studying living organisms as integrated wholes, rather than parts,

pioneered systems thinking. The study of Gestalt psychology, ecology, and quantum physics

further developed the ideas of systems thinking. Capra integrates the realizations of

scientists of the 1920s and those thereafter to come up with key characteristics of systems

thinking (1996).

The most general characteristic of systems thinking, according to Capra (1996), is

“the shift from the parts to the whole” (p. 36). Capra says that the ordered relationships

within the parts of a whole create the essential element of the whole. If these parts are

isolated, systemic properties disappear. Capra takes this idea one step further when he

points out that quantum physics shows that there are no parts at all. (Physicists, looking

inside atoms, have found that subatomic particles are not really things, but are instead

12


movement.) “Therefore the shift from the parts to the whole can also be seen as a shift from

objects to relationships” (1996, p. 37).

Briggs and Peat also explore the importance of relationships. Briggs and Peat state,

“The scientific term ‘chaos’ refers to an underlying interconnectedness that exists in

apparently random events” (1999, p. 1). To illustrate this interconnectedness, Briggs and

Peat describe a paradox as “a statement that appears simple yet acts to generate complex

resonances with the mind” (p. 80). Briggs and Peat give an example of the paradox of

complexity and simplicity by stating that to know a particular type of protozoa, one must

also know its environment, its connections to everything else, and the history of evolution.

Berry (1999) adds that we are in “a reciprocal relationship. We are touched by what

we touch. We are shaped by what we shape. We are enhanced by what we enhance” (p. 81).

Philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti (1953/1981) agrees: “Existence is relationship… our

suffering can be resolved only through the understanding of ourselves in relationship” (p.

62). Social scientist and writer Margaret Wheatley (2006) states that, “relationships are not

just interesting; to many physicists, they are all there is to reality” (p. 34).

Creativity stems from relationships.One reason these systems thinkers see relationships as so valuable is because

creativity often comes through interactions. Swimme and Tucker (2011) state: “Attraction

is at the heart of creativity at all levels of being” (p. 12). They then describe how nuclei of

helium and hydrogen, as well as electrons, made up most of the universe, but then at just

the right moment, these electrons and protons joined to create the first atoms. This is one

example of a relationship leading to new creativity via the vehicle of attraction.

13


Capra (1996) and Briggs and Peat (1999) see creativity springing from relationships

among living things, resulting in evolution. Capra looks at an emerging, newer theory of

evolution. The newer evolution theory includes the classic avenues of random gene

mutation and DNA recombination (the trading of genes). But, it also adds another form of

evolution: symbiogenesis—the creation of new life forms that result from different

organisms living closely to (or inside) one another. In this way, according to Capra (1996),

cooperation of living beings has lead to the formation of new beings. Briggs and Peat give a

rainforest as an example of a coevolving ecosystem and they present another essential

element: diversity. Many diverse species in the rainforest evolved together and continually

live together in a web of existence (1999).

Destruction also leads to creativity.The universe story gives examples of creativity coming from diversity and

relationships, and also shows that destruction often leads to creativity. Capra (1996) gives

various examples of catastrophes that were “followed by intense periods of growth and

innovation” (p. 232), including the dramatic extinction of the dinosaurs that “cleared the

way for the evolution of the first primates, and eventually, the human species” (p. 233).

While Capra gives examples from Earth’s history, Briggs and Peat tell about humans who

have gone through periods of doubt and uncertainty. They say that turbulence can act “as a

way of extending whatever limited degrees of freedom we have come to accept from life”

(1996, p. 22). Swimme and Tucker (2011) say that although humans are sometimes

stunned by violence and destruction, we may be able to “learn to orient ourselves with its

presence in a way that is creative” (p. 68).

14


Self-making: Autopoiesis. With an understanding of how relationships in the universe have created everything

we know today, we also learn about another principle: autopoiesis. The term, “autopoiesis”

comes from the Greek words, auto, meaning “self,” and poiesis, which means “making.”

Capra (1996) states that autopoiesis refers to the organization of a system, not the

structure of the system. Capra says autopoiesis is “a network of production processes, in

which the function of each component is to participate in the production or transformation

of other components of the network” (1996, p. 98). Capra gives three fundamental

properties of a system that is autopoietic. According to Capra, autopoietic systems are self-

bounded, self-generating, and self-perpetuating (1996).

Capra (1996) goes on to give an example of an autopoietic system: Earth itself, also

known as the Gaia system. Gaia (Earth as a system) is self-bounded by the atmosphere.

Earth’s atmosphere is part of the Gaia system, as it is created by and transformed by

biological processes on Earth. According to Capra, Gaia is also self-generating: “The

planetary metabolism converts inorganic substances into organic, living matter and back

into soil, oceans, and air” (1996, p. 215). Finally, “the Gaia system is evidently self-

perpetuating. The component of the oceans, soil, and air, as well as all the organisms of the

biosphere, are continually replaced by the planetary process of production and

transformation” (1996, p. 215).

Other researchers have noted other autopoietic systems. While describing the

origins of stars, Swimme and Tucker (2011) state that stars are autopoietic when their

formative gases compress, and give off light, because of gravity. The necessary gravity

comes from the hydrogen and helium cloud that will become the star. “In other words, the

mass of the future star creates the gravity necessary to give birth to the star itself. In that

15


sense, each star is a self-generating event” (p. 27). Uhl (2013) brings this idea of

autopoiesis to the entire universe: “the universe has an innate tendency to self-organize

and thereby to become more complex, more highly organized, more conscious, and more

fully alive, over time” (ch. 1, sec. 2, para. 23).

Subtle influence.Another idea that is related to these ideas of creativity, relationship, and autopoiesis

is the idea of the “butterfly effect”—small, seemingly unimportant changes can have big

impacts. According to Briggs and Peat (1999), “chaos theory shows us how apparently tiny

and insignificant things can end up playing a major role in the way things turn out” (p. 9).

They say that small changes in a system, when amplified through feedback loops, make for

unpredictable results. Capra (1996) also states that living systems are greatly affected by

small changes in their environments, particularly when the system is at a bifurcation point.

When Swimme and Tucker (2011) point out that, “over the course of four billion years,

molten rocks transformed themselves into monarch butterflies, blue herons, and the

exalted music of Mozart” (p. 106), we can see great effects brought about through small

changes over time.

Wheatley brings up another form of subtle influence: fields.

Something strange has happened to space in the quantum world. No longer is it a lonely void. Space everywhere is now thought to be filled with fields, invisible, non-material influences that are the basic substance of the universe. We cannot see these fields, but we do observe their effects. (p. 50)

These fields are all over and very powerful. Swimme (1984) says, “If you take a single atom

and make it as large as Yankee stadium, it would consist almost entirely of empty space”

(as cited in Uhl, 2013, ch. 2, sec. 1, para. 16). Uhl adds, “the reason that the chair you sit in

or the cup you drink from seems to be solid is that electromagnetic forces operate to hold

16


the speck-like nuclei of atoms together” (2013, ch. 2, sec. 1, para. 16). The existence of

fields such as electromagnetic forces and the gravitational field are unseen, but effects of

fields can be felt (Wheatley, 2006). Fields, according to Wheatley, have become “a

descriptor for how change occurs without the direct exertion of one element needing to

shove another into place” (2006, p. 50). With connections created by invisible fields, small,

subtle actions can create changes in distant, seemingly unrelated areas.

Uncertainties.Galileo, Newton, Descartes and other mechanistic thinkers looked for certain truths.

Today’s systems thinkers realize that in a network of relationships, there are no certainties.

Capra states, “All scientific concepts and theories are limited and approximate. Science can

never provide any complete and definitive understanding” (1996, p. 41).

These uncertainties bring hope to some. Swimme and Tucker (2011) sound hopeful

when they say, “We do not enter a finished universe. We do not enter a completed form of

seeing. Scientists have articulated the details of evolution and because of this we can, using

our imaginations, now begin to ‘see’ back in time” (p. 62). Briggs and Peat (1999) say it this

way: “Chaos tells us that the missing information is the window to the whole. In the pit of

uncertainty looms our access to creative possibilities” (p. 174).

Our new story: The universe storyRelationships, creativity, destruction, autopoiesis, subtlety, and uncertainty are key

to the system of the universe and systems within the universe. These understandings, as

well as other scientific observations, lead humans to a new contextual story for our lives:

the story of the universe. Uhl states, “In this new story, the universe is not a thing at all, nor

17


is it a place; rather, it is a process of becoming—a dazzling unfolding” (ch. 1, sec. 2, para.

23).

Filmmaker Neal Rogin interviews Swimme on a DVD titled The Awakening Universe

(2006), and in the interview Swimme draws attention to the difference between the

cosmos and cosmogenesis. Mechanical thinkers and most people since the times of Galileo

and Newton have thought of the cosmos as an object. The universe was viewed as a

complete, definable place. Now, Swimme and others say that science has changed our view

of the universe. It is not a place, but an ongoing story, and we are part of that story. The

ongoing formation of the universe is called cosmogenesis.

Human PotentialConsidering our new story as described by various authors, I will now examine the

potential of humans within this story. Uhl (2013) says the following:

The new story abandons the old belief that the world was made for humans, putting in its place the belief that we, humans, were made for the world. In other words, it is not the world that belongs to us, but we who belong to the world. This shift presents a profound challenge to human identity. (ch. 1, sec. 2, para. 24)

According to Swimme and Tucker (2011), the universe story is “such a comprehensive

story that it challenges our understanding of who we are and what our role might be in the

universe” (p. 4). We humans are not separate from the self-organizing universe; we are an

integral part of it, just as stars, water, and oak trees are. Through its self-organizing

powers, the Universe became prepared for humanity, and the Universe could be considered

the ultimate prepared environment for humans and for everything else just the same.

Although humans are a part of the unfolding universe, scientists acknowledge that

humans are different from other forms of life on Earth. Swimme and Tucker (2011) say

that some traits of humans—including bipedalism, larger brain size, and a loss of some

18


instinctual responses (which allows for flexibility of choices)—allow for a more

exploratory, more reflective type of consciousness. According to Swimme and Tucker, this

different consciousness accompanied symbolic language. With symbolic consciousness and

language, humans created a new kind of culture—a culture in which insights, ideas, and

musings could be passed on to others and could be altered.

Symbolic consciousness, language, and cultural inventions helped humans “adapt to

new environments much more quickly than would be the case if they had to rely solely

upon genetic changes,” and so humans traveled around the world and widely varying

environments became our homes (Swimme and Tucker, 2011, p. 93). Various people

adapted to climates and biomes all around the world. Later, humans formed more settled

civilizations, and again gained new insights (such as agricultural ideas) and invented many

new things (wheeled transportation, legislation, literature, etc.). According to Swimme and

Tucker (2011), consciousness grew again. Rogin (2006) adds that human consciousness

was created by the universe as a way for the universe to become aware of itself.

As mentioned previously, entrenched in our old story, humans have used symbolic

consciousness in a way that has hurt Earth. When discussing the potential of the human,

Swimme and Tucker present a challenge: “The genius of the human… is the capacity of

symbolic consciousness to survive in any biome. The challenge of the human … is learning

to manage these seemingly infinite powers bestowed by symbolic consciousness” (2011, p.

94). Uhl (2013) states it thus: “Yes, it is upheaval and tumult that grow us up. Birthing a

new self, a new culture, a new world will be terribly difficult and demanding, but the result

—the full-fledged flowering of our shared humanity—is certainly worth the effort”

19


(epilogue, para. 14). Perhaps it is time for humans to awaken in our new role, within our

new understanding of the universe story.

Nature as humanity’s guide.With some understanding of the science behind our new story and of the potential

of the human consciousness, I now look at what we humans can learn from the universe

from which we have come. The Universe and Gaia – Earth’s whole system – may teach us

how to flourish within the universe story.

Relationships are key to the universe. Bohm (1996) states, “A society is a link of

relationships among people and institutions, so that we can live together. But it only works

if we have a culture—which implies that we share meaning; i.e., significance, purpose, and

value” (p. 22). Bohm continues by saying that the act of sharing our thoughts, our

consciousness, is more important than the actual content of what we share. Uhl (2013)

believes that if we view ourselves as “fundamentally separate from each other and Earth,

we will live in ways that engender precisely this separation” (ch. 8, sec. 1, para. 18). On the

other hand, if we view ourselves in relationship to each other and Earth, we will live in

ways that enhance this relationship.

Another facet of the universe story is that creativity flows from relationships, and

that it sometimes follows destruction or upheaval. Briggs and Peat (1999) give an example

of creativity that has come through human relationships: the Internet. No one controls the

Internet; self-organized users, who creatively work together, maintain it.

To explore relationship, creativity, and upheaval in a human group, I will share a

personal story. In July of 2011, my brother died in an accident. He was 32 years old. His son

was four. His wife was pregnant with their second child. Of course, our family was stunned

20


and full of grief. I questioned everything I thought I knew. This was a bifurcation point for

my family: we could each spiral down into self-pity and depression, or we could walk

through our grief with help from each other and others. Although we each went through

periods of negativity, we generally walked through our pain. My parents, sister, sister-in-

law, and I all talk much more openly about our thoughts, feelings, and difficulties than we

did before my brother’s death. We are more committed to spending quality time together.

We have changed our relationships for the better, and our family is as strong and full of

love as it has ever been.

Uhl (1999) offers another view of humanity learning from Gaia and the universe.

After recounting some of the real, current threats to humanity (and Earth)—“nuclear

annihilation, widespread chemical poisoning, catastrophic climate change, resources wars,

epidemic disease outbreaks, and more” (Epilogue, para. 7)—Uhl posits that these imminent

dangers may lead to creativity. “Maybe the wacky frenzy of growth of the last two centuries

with all its inflicted wounds has been necessary to get us to where we are going. Maybe it’s

a kind of developmental stage that our species has had to go through to achieve greater

maturity” (Epilogue, para. 8). Uhl calls our current time “the Great Turning—i.e.,

humankind’s turning away from crippling separation and turning toward kinship,

community, and deeper purpose. Indeed, this Great Turning is already well under way” (ch.

8, para. 4).

Capra (1996) lays out principles of organization that are present in ecological

systems, and that we could use as guidelines when organizing human communities:

Interdependence

Cycles of matter and energy

21


Cooperation and partnership

Flexibility within tolerance limits

Diversity

Capra states that interdependence is about relationships, and that a healthy human

community “is aware of the multiple relationships among its members” (p. 298). The cycles

in nature sustain themselves because the waste from one aspect is useful for another.

Capra says that our current industrial systems are linear, not cyclical. “In human

communities partnership means democracy and personal empowerment. … As partnership

proceeds, each partner better understands the needs of the other. … They coevolve” (p.

301). He continues by stating that flexibility within human systems is key to adapting to

changing environments. “Lack of flexibility manifests itself as stress” (p. 302), and although

short-term stress is essential, long-term stress makes a system unsustainable. Finally,

Capra discusses the importance of diversity, because it leads to resiliency. In ecological

systems, diversity leads to resiliency “because it contains many species with overlapping

ecological functions that can partially replace one another” (p. 303). When a particular

species is destroyed, “a diverse community will be able to survive and reorganize itself,

because other links in the network can at least partially fulfill the function of the destroyed

species” (p. 303). Capra says that diversity is important in human systems as well:

“Diversity means many different relationships, many different approaches to the same

problem. A diverse community is a resilient community, capable of adapting to changing

situations” (p. 303). Capra sums up humanity’s possibilities thus: “The survival of humanity

will depend on our ecological literacy, on our ability to understand these principles of

ecology and live accordingly” (p. 304).

22


Swimme and Tucker (2011) give other ways humans could look to the universe for

guidance. Swimme and Tucker say that humanity’s “path is uncertain because our sense of

larger purpose and destiny is clouded” (p. 111). It appears that everything else in the

universe has a purpose. Swimme and Tucker wonder, “Do we humans have such a role” (p.

111)? They give a possible answer: “Perhaps our destiny has something to do with this

desire to journey and to experience the depths of things” (p. 112). Swimme and Tucker

offer stars, oceans, and the creativity of our human hands as guidance in this quest for

destiny. Stars “draw us into wonder . . . a gateway through which the universe floods in and

takes up residence within us” (p. 113). We now know that we are made of matter that was

created long ago in stars, that we are stardust, that “everything in the universe then forms a

huge interconnected family” (p. 113). Swimme and Tucker use the ocean as a symbol of

humans’ power of intimacy. The ocean can dissolve things into itself, and with human

consciousness, we have empathy and compassion for all beings. “Our human destiny is to

become the heart of the universe that embraces the whole of the Earth community. … We

are beings with the capacity to feel comprehensive compassion in the midst of an ocean of

intimacy” (p. 115). Finally, according to Swimme and Tucker, our creativity, which is like

the creativity of the universe, is a part of our destiny:

Our role is to provide the hands and hearts that will enable the universe’s energies to come forth in a new order of well-being. Our destiny is to bring forth a planetary civilization that is both culturally diverse and locally vibrant, a multiform civilization that will enable life and humanity to flourish. (p. 116)

In sum, Swimme and Tucker challenge humans to wonder, to share intimacy with all

beings, and to create.

23


The Great Work.Berry gives a name to humanity’s role in the Universe: “the Great Work of a people”

(1999, p. 1). To explain the Great Work, Berry says, “history is governed by those

overarching movements that give shape and meaning to life by relating the human venture

to the larger destinies of the universe” (p. 1). He gives many examples of Great Works

throughout history, a few of which follow: Native Americans’ Great Work “was to occupy

this continent and establish an intimate rapport with the powers that brought this

continent into existence in all its magnificence,” the classical Greeks’ Great Work was “its

understanding of the human” (p. 1). However, Berry also states that each of these Great

Works “bear the marks of the deeply human flaws and imperfections” (p. 2). Berry points

to “assault on the indigenous peoples” (p. 2) and disturbances of biosystems (p. 3) as some

of these flaws.

Berry (1999) says that we modern humans have not chosen our Great Work; rather

“it is a role given to us” by previous generations (p. 7). Berry asserts that humanity’s Great

Work in modern times “is to carry out the transition from a period of human devastation of

the Earth to a period when humans would be present to the planet in a mutually beneficial

manner” (p. 3). To explain what he means by “human devastation of the Earth,” Berry

points to the extinction of formerly abundant life forms, waste disposal in river systems,

pollution of the atmosphere, and other ways humans have affected Earth’s biosystems (p.

2-3).

24


Chapter Two: My Background“The human personality is shaped by continuous experiences.”

(Montessori, 1949/1992, p. 32)

With all this exploration of integration, I believe it may be an appropriate time for

me to share some of my background. I hope to give the reader a glimpse into where I am

coming from—literally and figuratively. I grew up in a rural part of Ohio, with two

neighbors within walking distance. Otherwise, corn, wheat, and soybean fields, as well as a

small forest, surrounded our house. My parents always had a large garden, and we children

helped plant seeds in the spring and harvest in the summer and fall. There was a Bartlett

pear tree in our yard, and my siblings and I would climb up it and sit among the branches,

eating pears until our stomachs hurt.

When my older sister Keri was about 2 and half years old, my parents realized that

she was learning a lot, and felt that they did not know how to address her changing needs.

My parents observed in various preschools in the area, one of which was a new one-room

Montessori primary program. After spending some time there, my parents decided to send

my sister to the Montessori school. As those first preschoolers got older, the Montessori

school expanded to include elementary classes, ending with 12-year-olds in sixth grade.

When I was an infant, my mom attended an American Montessori Society (AMS) training

course for primary-aged students. She became a Montessori directress at the school my

sister (and now, my brother also) attended. I attended the small, private Montessori school

from the age of 18 months through upper elementary. The school had an expansive play

25


field, a vegetable garden for students and teachers, and a giant weeping willow tree with

leaves that hung down to the ground.

After finishing upper elementary, my siblings and I attended traditional public

middle school and high school. At the traditional middle school, I realized that many of my

classmates had given up on themselves. In traditional elementary school, they had not had

opportunities to study what they liked, learn about relationships among all things, or

realize their individual strengths. I was in 8th-grade when I realized that I wanted to

become a Montessori teacher.

When I went to college at Xavier University, in Cincinnati, Ohio, I was introduced to

city life, initially through running with the cross-country team. I was taken aback by the

traffic we ran near, and was nervous to cross bridges that did not have a designated lane

for pedestrians or bicyclists. I became accustomed to the ever-present sounds and lights

outside my dormitory window, but I never became a “city person.”

Also at Xavier, I was introduced to public Montessori schools. I immediately knew

that I wanted to work in the public sector, to allow children of all socio-economic

backgrounds a chance to attend a Montessori school. I observed in all the public Montessori

preschools and elementary schools in Cincinnati. During the first semester of my senior

year, I interned at Mercy Montessori Center, a private Montessori school. I spent the second

semester at Dater Montessori, in Cincinnati Public Schools. That spring, I looked for jobs in

public Montessori schools, and it seemed to me that all the options were in large cities.

When I visited Denison Montessori, in Denver Public Schools, and met the principal Martha

Urioste, many of the teachers, and some students, I knew I wanted to teach there.

26


I worked at Denison Montessori for three years. Although teaching was challenging,

I felt that I was doing the work I was meant to do. The students’ diversity was new to me

(there was not much diversity in the area of Ohio where I had grown up) and their parents’

commitment to education inspired me. I learned a lot from my mentor Ann Angell, as well

as from other experienced teachers. I observed in other teachers’ classrooms and in

various Montessori schools along the Front Range of Colorado. I attended numerous

professional development workshops and grew as Montessori directress.

Although I appreciated my time in Denver, the mountains of central Colorado called

to me. A new charter school, Ross Montessori, was opening in the small town of

Carbondale, about 200 miles from Denver. The local school district decided to end the

Montessori “strand” within its elementary school, and parents and teachers got a charter

through the state of Colorado to open a school. The parent leaders were looking for one

more Lower Elementary teacher. I got the job! The current 2014-15 school year is Ross

Montessori’s tenth year of operation, and I have been teaching there the entire time.

With my experiences in rural Ohio, Cincinnati, Denver, and Carbondale, I have

become interested in learning more about public Montessori schools in rural or

geographically remote areas. This will be the setting for the rest of the thesis.

27


Chapter Three: Education in the Universe Story“The fundamental principle in education is correlation of all subjects, and their

centralization in the cosmic plan.”

(Montessori, 1948/1989, p. 55)

With an understanding of the universe as cosmogenesis and humanity’s potential

within the universe system, I now explore some ways that education may help humanity on

our journey to Great Work. Children can learn about the “single integral community of the

Earth” (Berry, 1999, p. 4). In this chapter, I will explore Montessori education and

education in rural and remote areas.

Maria MontessoriNow, I will primarily look at the work of physician and educator Maria Montessori.

According to biographer Rita Kramer (1976/1988), Montessori was born in 1870 in the

town of Chiaravalle, Italy. In that same year, Italy had just become a unified country and

had two very distinct classes – the educated, wealthy upper class and the (mostly) illiterate

workers and peasants. Montessori’s family was in the upper class, and she attended school

in Rome, after her father was transferred there for work. At the age of thirteen, Montessori

entered a technical school with a science emphasis, which was mostly for boys. After

graduating from technical school in 1890, Montessori attended the University of Rome,

much to the dismay of her father, who would have liked her to become someone’s wife. As a

student at the University of Rome, she studied physics, mathematics, and natural sciences.

When she received her diploma, she wanted to go to medical school to become a medical

doctor. With much perseverance, Montessori was admitted to medical school. In 1896,

28


Montessori became the first woman to obtain a Doctor of Medicine degree from the

University of Rome (Kramer, 1976/1988).

After becoming a doctor, Montessori worked and continued to study fields that

interested her – including medicine, anthropology, and education. During this time, she

worked closely with a colleague named Giuseppe Montesano. Montessori and Montesano

became close friends and eventually lovers. Montessori gave birth in secret to a son she

named Mario. Montesano and Montessori never married, and young Mario was sent to the

country to live with a wet nurse. Montessori visited her son throughout his childhood

(Kramer, 1976/1988).

In 1900, Montessori worked in an institute with children who “could not function

[in elementary schools] as well as those who had been sent to the asylums as idiots”

(Kramer, 1976/1988, p. 89). During her time working there, Montessori visited other such

institutions and developed both materials and methods for working with these children.

She also used and improved upon learning materials created by Jean-Marc Itard and his

student Eduard Seguin. Montessori’s students in the institute saw great success. After

leaving the psychiatric institute, Montessori returned to the University of Rome to study

pedagogy, psychology, and anthropology. She became well known in Europe, gave lectures

on pedagogy, and sat on various international committees (Kramer, 1976/1988).

In 1907, Montessori opened a Casa dei Bambini, a Children’s House, in Rome. This

was Montessori’s first opportunity to work with “ordinary children” (Kramer, 1976/1988,

p. 111). According to education researcher Angeline Lillard, Montessori “viewed her

schools as laboratories in which to study how children learn best” (2005, p. 17). “By testing

new approaches and materials and noting children’s reactions, over the next 50 years

29


Montessori developed a radically different system of education” (Lillard, 2005, p. 18).

Through observation and scientific inquiry, Montessori developed ideas relating to all

stages of child development, from infancy through adulthood. Montessori traveled the

world to lecture and train teachers throughout her life, as well. Montessori’s son, Mario

Montessori Sr., and grandson, Mario Montessori Jr., worked with her and continued some

of her work. The next sections of this chapter look at the universe story through the lens of

Montessori education.

The Universe Story and Montessori EducationNow I will describe Montessori’s views of education, in the context of the universe

story. MM Montessori Jr.2 and philosopher Jiddu Krishnamurti believe that integration

should be the focus of education. MM Montessori Jr. says, “To arouse [children’s] interest,

they must first be shown the interrelation of things in the world” (1976/1992, p. 98).

Krishnamurti (1953/1981) echoes this idea: “as long as education does not cultivate an

integrated outlook on life, it has very little significance” (p. 11).

Montessori education relates to cosmogenesis by looking at education through the

lens of the following aspects of the universe story: relationships, how relationships can lead

to change, destruction leading to creativity, autopoiesis, subtle influence, uncertainties, and

human consciousness. Finally, I will explore how nature may guide humanity’s view of

education and how education may be part of humanity’s Great Work.

Relationships in Montessori environments.One aspect of the universe story is the importance of relationships. Similarly to

Briggs and Peat’s example of knowing a protozoa, its environment, the systems in which it

2 Throughout this paper, the name Montessori refers to Maria Montessori. The names MM Montessori, Sr. and MM Montessori, Jr. refer to her son and grandson, respectively.

30


lives, and the history of evolution, Montessori states: “The stars, earth, stones, life of all

kinds form a whole in relation with each other, and so close a relation that we cannot

understand a stone without some understanding of the great sun!” (1948/1989, p. 6).

Montessori and MM Montessori Sr. developed an idea of cosmic education – the idea that,

particularly for the elementary child, all subjects are correlated and the relationships

among different topics are studied. Montessori charges elementary Montessori guides3

thus:

Let us give [the child] a vision of the whole universe. The universe is an imposing reality, and an answer to all questions. We shall walk together on this path of life, for all things are part of the universe, and are connected with each other to form one whole unity. (1948/1989, p. 6)

Montessori calls cosmic education “a foundation stone” of elementary education

(1948/1989, p. 7).

Along with these relationships within cosmic education, Montessori sees

importance in the relationships among people. In educational environments, interpersonal

relationships are mostly among students and between the guide and each student.

Discussing elementary-aged children (ages 6 to 12), Montessori says they have a “need to

associate [themselves] with others, not merely for the sake of company, but some sort of

organized activity” (1948/1989, p. 4). Krishnamurti (1953/1981) says, “co-operation

between teacher and student is impossible if there is no mutual affection, mutual respect”

(33). MM Montessori Jr. says, “teachers are the representatives of [the] wider community.

They must help the children by gradually familiarizing them with its rules. Furthermore,

3 According to MM Montessori Jr., Montessori “discarded the term teacher altogether, preferring that of directress” (1976/1992, p. 23). Currently, the terms directress, director, and guide are used interchangeably.

31


this must be done in a manner that makes their inner acceptance by the children possible”

(1976/1992, p. 23-24).

MM Montessori Jr. (1976/1992) adds another aspect of the social relationships in

the classroom. Not only are their individual relationships, but also a large-scale

relationship among all in the community:

One can speak of a true community only when each member of the group feels sufficiently free to be himself or herself, while simultaneously restricting his or her own freedom for the sake of adjustment to the group. It is in seeking an optimal solution to this tension between personal independence and dependence on the group that the social being is formed (p. 24).

MM Montessori Jr. places such value on relationships that he says, “It is only as a member

of a group that the individual can accomplish his task as a human being” (1976/1992, p.

36). Wheatley points out that positive relationships are key to any organization or

community: “all of us need to become better at listening, conversing, respecting one

another’s uniqueness, because these are essential for strong relationships” (2006, p. 30).

So, Montessori education addresses relationships both among subjects and among people.

Relationships lead to creativity. Another aspect of the universe story is the idea that relationships can lead to

creativity and newness. Again, Montessori addresses relationships within the curriculum

and with other people.

When discussing sciences, Montessori often refers to collaboration and coevolution

of living and nonliving things on Earth:

We can talk of earth in its three coverings of solid, liquid and gaseous, and a fourth covering. … It is sometimes called the ‘Biosphere,’ or sphere of life, and it is as intimately part of the earth as the fur is of an animal, not something which suddenly rained on the world from outside. (1948/1989, p. 19)

32


A strong “factor in evolutionary processes is concerned with cosmic function of each living

being, and even of inanimate natural objects, working in collaboration for the fulfillment of

the Purpose of Life” (1948/1989, p. 27). Montessori uses her scientific background as she

develops her ideas for education.

Montessori education also encourages creativity to come from interpersonal

relationships. MM Montessori Jr. says that, with social interaction, “plays and dialogues are

created” (1976/1992, p. 27). He also says that after the guide presents a group lesson, “a

wave of activity among the children” sometimes occurs. “Sometimes this results in their

working together directly. At other times they may work individually, on their own level

and according to their own insight and abilities. However, they are at the same time taking

part in a group event, for their separate contributions are on a common subject and can

later be seen by everyone as a collective achievement” (1976/1992, p. 26).

Again, it becomes apparent that diversity is important for creativity. Each child’s

separate contribution is part of a larger achievement. Each relationship is different because

every individual is different. Biologist Roger Fouts (1997), working with chimpanzees,

notes:

It was the variety of chimpanzee learning styles that most profoundly shaped my own view of how human children acquire language. … When it comes to intelligence, language, or learning, it is not enough to know the species. One has to know the individual. (p. 146)

MM Montessori Jr. (1976/1992) points out that sometimes children work together in small

groups, and “at other times they may work individually, on their own level and according to

their own insight and abilities” (p. 26). So, perhaps children need time to learn with others

and time to work independently.

33


Krishnamurti (1953/1981) also sees the value in knowing each other as individuals:

“Nothing of fundamental value can be accomplished through mass instruction, but only

through the careful study and understanding of the difficulties, tendencies and capacities of

each child” (p. 85). Krishnamurti mentions the importance of the individual, not only in

regards to how the individual learns academics, nor in regards to the student’s background,

but also each individual’s personality and potential:

We consider equally the children of the rich and of the poor, regarding each child as an individual with his particular temperament, heredity, ambitions, and so on. We are concerned, not with a class, not with the powerful or the weak, but with the freedom and integration of the individual. (p. 110)

Fouts, MM Montessori Jr., and Krishnamurti all point to benefits of working within a

group and realizing that each individual brings different viewpoints to the community.

With individuality and relationships, the community shares in creativity.

Destruction can lead to creativity.Montessori also discusses how something that appears to be destruction or a

catastrophe can lead to more creativity. Here, she addresses it in relationship to the

formation of Earth as we know it: “Continents dissolve into sea, and seas yield to growing

land. Under our eyes everything is being worn down, to be rebuilt in new form”

(1948/1989, p. 28). Montessori also sees waves of change during child development. When

discussing child development, she says, “in growth there are crises, somewhat like the

metamorphosis of the insects” (1938/1971, p. 3).

Autopoiesis in Montessori environments.Montessori seems to see human development as an autopoietic process, from birth

through adulthood. Montessori says that the method of education she has developed is

“guided by the manifestations of children at different phases of growth” (1938/1971, p. 3).

34


In other words, children create themselves, in relationship with their environments.

Montessori mentions three key aspects of children’s self-making: the children themselves,

their environment, and the guide. She says, “There is a direct interchange between the child

and his environment while the teacher … constitutes primarily a link between them”

(1955/1989, p. 39).

On a different scale, Montessori also notes self-organization within human society.

She describes early civilizations and their impacts on each other, “showing human society

as slowly organizing itself to unity” (1948/1989, p. 2). She challenges elementary

Montessori guides to lead children thus:

By review of some of the most thrilling epochs of world history, to see that so far humanity has been in an embryonic stage, and that it is just now emerging into true birth, able to consciously realize its true unity and function. (1948/1989, p. 2)

As an elementary Montessori guide, I have seen groups of children form autopoietic

communities. According to MM Montessori Jr. (1976/1992), the “cultural community”

includes “standards, habits, patterns of behaviour, ideals, religion, and knowledge of all

other aspects of its civilization” (p. 18). In my understanding, this “cultural community”

includes the wider culture – the student’s home life, family relationships, behaviors outside

of school, and interactions with other people outside of school. It is hard to know the level

of influence I, as a teacher, may have over those aspects of each child’s culture. However, as

Montessori guide, I set the tone within my classroom. This is the cultural community I will

discuss here.

In my experience, when children are given the responsibility to care for their

environment and view the classroom as “ours,” they quickly learn to care for the materials

and furniture within the environment. In a similar way, when children see successful

35


problem solving and are expected to work out difficulties independently, they can do so.

Each school year, the older students in my Montessori class show younger students how to

carefully walk around someone else’s work spot. The older students and I also act out

different scenarios that show how we can work together to solve difficult situations, like

when two children want to use the same material at the same time, or when someone

accidentally bumps into someone else and disturbs their work. Typically, after we present

these ideas to the whole community, I observe students reminding each other of

techniques that may help. Sometimes, students may intentionally have a fake “argument,”

because they want to practice problem-solving skills. In my opinion, these students, within

a cultural framework, are creating an autopoietic community and creating their individual

personalities.

Subtle influence in the classroom.Montessori describes the butterfly effect in education. She sees that great influence

can come from small changes or ideas. When discussing the education of the elementary-

aged child, she says, “all factors of culture may be introduced … in the broadcasting of the

maximum number of seeds of interest. These will be held lightly in the mind, but will be

capable of later germination” (1948/1989, p. 3-4). In other words, the child takes in

information and ideas, and some of the ideas may sit idle for a while. At some point, the

child will use an idea when it relates to something else. The idea may not seem like much in

the moment, but may have profound impact later.

36


Uncertainties in education. Montessori appreciates mystery, wonder, and uncertainties that adults have

regarding children and within children themselves. Montessori, like Swimme and Tucker,

embraces these uncertainties as hopeful.

Montessori says that adults do not understand everything about child development.

Our first teacher, therefore, will be the child himself, or rather the vital urge with the cosmic laws that lead him unconsciously. Not what we call the child’s will, but the mysterious will that directs his formation—this must be our guide (1955/1989, p. 16).

In other words, although adult observers can understand much, the inner drive of the child

– the drive for growth and development – remains mysterious.

Montessori also strives to awaken some uncertainties within children. According to

Montessori, “if the idea of the universe be presented to the child in the right way, it will do

more for him than just arouse his interest, for it will create in him admiration and wonder”

(1948/1989, p. 6). She says that when children feel this admiration and wonder, they will

want to learn more and want to learn about the relationships among all topics. The wonder

and uncertainties drive more learning. For guides working with elementary children, she

says, an aim “is not merely to make [children] understand, and still less to force [them] to

memorize, but so to touch [their] imagination as to enthuse [them] to [their] inmost core”

(1948/1989, p. 11).

Children and the universe story. Montessori educators tell stories to touch the children’s imaginations and to bring

about wonder. Montessori herself presents

How the Cosmic Plan can be presented to the child, as a thrilling tale of the earth we live in, its many changes through slow ages. … Illustrated as it must be by fascinating charts and diagrams, the creation of earth as we now know it unfolds before the child’s imagination. (1948/1989, p. 1-2)

37


Eight chapters of Montessori’s book To Educate the Human Potential (1948/1989) tell

stories of Earth’s creation, evolution of life, catastrophes and extinctions, human evolution,

and the building of civilizations. Montessori says,

To interest the children in the universe, we must not begin by giving them elementary facts about it, to make them merely understand its mechanism, but start with far loftier notions, put in an acceptable manner suited to the child’s psychology. (1948/1989, p. 19)

For generations, elementary guides in Montessori schools have told the stories of

astronomy, geography, ecology, and history, in an effort not only to inspire wonder and

awe, but also to help children see interrelationships within the universe.

According to MM Montessori Jr.,

One way to give children the global view of the universe they need is by introducing the ecological principle in education. The interrelation of living and non-living things can be considered – what plants, for example, need from the earth to be able to grow, what special functions they have with regard to carbon dioxide, oxygen, water, and so on. (1976/1992, p. 98)

Krishnamurti (1953/1981) shares the same sentiment: “the whole cannot be understood

through the part; it can be understood only through action and experience” (p. 20).

I have observed elementary children gain understanding of interrelationships

through action and experience. It began on a sunny, chilly spring day. My students and I

went outside to a natural field. I pointed out a particular clump of grass, and then I asked

the students to look around for things the grass was getting from its environment. I asked,

“What does this grass need in order to grow? How is it getting the things it needs?” The

children came up with a list: sunshine, warmth, soil, rain, and so on, and they realized the

environment provides each of those things. After I thought we were finished, one boy

asked, “What happens if the grass doesn’t get those things?” This question prompted a long

discussion, and then another boy said, “Let’s do an experiment!” With that, we were off!

38


The children created a list of needed items, and the next day, I arrived at school with

a bunch of pots, soil, seeds, and gardening gloves. The children carefully planted three

seeds in each pot, then labeled the pots: “No light,” “No water,” etcetera. They found places

for each pot, and even put one in the refrigerator (“No warmth”). At my suggestion, the

children also planted seeds in a pot that would get all the things they thought it might need.

On their own, they made a schedule and list of who would care for each plant when, and

eagerly awaited results. When I asked them to write a hypothesis about what each plant

might do, they excitedly wrote in their new botany journals.

Each morning, as the children entered the room, the first thing most of them would

do was check on the plants’ progress. As the plants started to grow, the children were

excited to see the plant in the dark closet grow very, very tall – and that it was almost white

in color, rather than green. It eventually fell over and died. Neither the plant in the

refrigerator nor the one that received no water ever sprouted. The children marveled at the

strong, green plant that received all it needed. From my viewpoint, these children learned

about some of the universe’s interrelationships, through their own experiences and actions.

Human Consciousness Similarly to some of the other scientists mentioned, Montessori sees human

consciousness as a different form of consciousness within the universe. Montessori says it

this way: “Human consciousness comes into the world as a flaming ball of imagination.

Everything invented by [humans], physical or mental, is the fruit of someone’s imagination”

(1948/1989, p. 10).

Montessori and her son, Mario M. Montessori Sr., identified some aspects of human

consciousness. The Montessoris identified “human tendencies,” and saw them as “basic

39


factors which do not change” from place to place or over time (MM Montessori Sr., 1956, p.

15). According to MM Montessori Sr. (1956), human tendencies include the following:

Orienting self (in place and time)

Ordering (knowing where things are and creating order)

Exploring

Observing

Abstracting

Imagining

Manipulating

Repeating

Perfecting (repeating with more accuracy; not having a goal of “perfection”)

Working

Communicating

MM Montessori Sr. adds that these tendencies are interrelated, and that these tendencies

are active throughout a person’s life, and throughout humanity’s existence.

Nature as the educator’s guide.With symbolic consciousness and these tendencies, MM Montessori Jr. says that

humans have “the power to create fantastic new possibilities: [they] may travel to other

planets, or totally destroy this one. [Humanity’s] power needs guidance” (p. 100). Where

may humans seek this guidance?

Like others, Montessori states that we can learn from nature: “Nature is the teacher

of life – let us follow her ways!” (1948/1989, p. 77). Montessori continues, “nature follows

a plan … humanity too is an organic unity” (1948/1989, p.76-77). MM Montessori Sr. adds

40


that humans are integrally linked, just as everything else in nature is. He believes that

humans need to become “aware that humanity is already so physically united that if

something disastrous happens in some part of the world, the consequences are felt

throughout the whole” (1976, p. 4). With that awareness, we may be able to grow in human

unity.

Humanity’s cosmic task.Like Uhl, Capra, Berry, Swimme, and Tucker, Montessori also shares a vision for a

new human. What Swimme and Tucker call human destiny and Berry calls Great Work,

Montessori calls “a cosmic task, [humanity’s] collaboration with others in work for [their]

environment, for the whole universe … towards creative fulfillment” (1948/1989, p. 27).

MM Montessori Jr. adds more to the definition of a cosmic task: “The service that must be

rendered by the individuals of each species to the environment on which they are

dependent for their existence to maintain it in such a way that it will support their

descendants, generation after generation” (1976/1992, p. 99). MM Montessori Jr.

(1976/1992) says that one of Montessori’s contributions to society is her “identification of

children as the link that guarantees the continuity of human evolution, which is a cultural

evolution” (p. 37). If children are the link that guarantees human evolution, children

throughout the world deserve an integrated education.

41


Montessori Schools in America’s Public SectorAs I mentioned earlier, I am particularly interested in publicly funded Montessori

schools as opposed to private Montessori schools. I will now look specifically at

Montessori schools in the public sector. The National Center for Montessori in the Public

Sector (NCMPS), an affiliated entity of AMS, is conducting research within the public

Montessori community and advocating for Montessori education in the public sector. As of

March 2015, NCMPS has identified 495 Montessori school programs in the public sector.

These 495 Montessori programs include schools within public districts, schools chartered

through their local district or the state, and Montessori “strands”—Montessori classes

within a traditional school building (http://www.public-montessori.org/). See Figures 1

and 2.

Figure 1: Public Montessori schools in the contiguous US (NCMPS, 2015)

42


Figure 2: Public Montessori schools in Alaska (NCMPS, 2015)

According to NCMPS, “the last fifteen years have witnessed a surge of interest in

Montessori education” (2014). Also, “this growth in Montessori programs is evident not

just in the private but also in the public sector.” See Figure 3. According to NCMPS, “in the

last 15 years, the growth of public Montessori programs has been roughly even between

charter and district/magnet schools.” And, when looking solely at freestanding schools

(rather than schools within schools), approximately 82% of them are charter schools

(NCMPS, 2014).

Finally, NCMPS says, “the growth of Montessori education in the public sector mirrors the

trajectory of the movement as a whole” (2014).

Figure 3: Growth of public Montessori programs in the US (NCMPS, 2015)

43


Education in Rural America What is rural America? Life in the United States, according to professors and rural

researchers Kim Donehower, Charlotte Hogg, and Eileen Schell (2012), has changed as

populations have shifted among rural, suburban, and urban areas. The term rural has had

various definitions during recent years. As economist Andrew Isserman (2005) notes,

“’rural’ is used in … overlapping and often contradictory ways, always defined by what it is

not—not urban, not metropolitan” (p. 466, as cited in Donehower et al., 2012). Donehower

et al. add that rural is not simply a demographic and geographic definition, but is also a

cultural marker of identity for many people. They continue by stating that “identifying with

rural life and people,” “regardless of one’s location in a rural, urban, or suburban locale, is a

key element… in sustaining rural communities” (2012, p. 9). Donehower et al. invite others

to “re-see what distinguishes the rural from, and connects it to, the urban and suburban”

(2012, p. 9). I will keep these difficulties of clearly defining rural and the individual ways

people may view themselves in mind as I look at data regarding rural communities and

rural education.

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) keeps an up-to-date database of

all schools in the public sector. In 2006, NCES created urban-centric locale codes, which

classify a school’s location in twelve categories, ranging from “large city” to “rural”

(nces.ed.gov). NCES uses data from the U.S. Census Bureau to identify rural public schools,

categorized by locale code. See Table 1.

44


Table 1: Urban-Centric Locale Codes (NCES, 2015)

NCES Locale Code Description

11 - City, Large: Territory inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city with population of 250,000 or more.

12 - City, Midsize: Territory inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city with population less than 250,000 and greater than or equal to 100,000.

13 - City, Small: Territory inside an urbanized area and inside a principal city with population less than 100,000.

21 - Suburb, Large: Territory outside a principal city and inside an urbanized area with population of 250,000 or more.

22 - Suburb, Midsize: Territory outside a principal city and inside an urbanized area with population less than 250,000 and greater than or equal to 100,000.

23 - Suburb, Small: Territory outside a principal city and inside an urbanized area with population less than 100,000.

31 - Town, Fringe: Territory inside an urban cluster that is less than or equal to 10 miles from an urbanized area.

32 - Town, Distant: Territory inside an urban cluster that is more than 10 miles and less than or equal to 35 miles from an urbanized area.

33 - Town, Remote: Territory inside an urban cluster that is more than 35 miles from an urbanized area.

41 - Rural, Fringe: Census-defined rural territory that is less than or equal to 5 miles from an urbanized area, as well as rural territory that is less than or equal to 2.5 miles from an urban cluster.

42 - Rural, Distant: Census-defined rural territory that is more than 5 miles but less than or equal to 25 miles from an urbanized area, as well as rural territory that is more than 2.5 miles but less than or equal to 10 miles from an urban cluster.

43 - Rural, Remote: Census-defined rural territory that is more than 25 miles from an urbanized area and is also more than 10 miles from an urban cluster.

45


The following definitions from the NCES website help explain these codes further:

Census-designated place – an unincorporated community (i.e., without legal boundaries) for which locale officials provide boundaries for the purpose of Census tabulations. CMSA – an area that meets the requirement to qualify as a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and that has a population of 1,000,000 or more, and the components of which are large urbanized counties or a cluster of such counties (cities and towns in New England) that have substantial commuting interchange.

MSA – one or more contiguous counties that have a core area with a large population nucleus and adjacent communities that are highly integrated by economics or socially) with the core.

Principal city – primary population and economic center of an MSA.

Urbanized areas and clusters – densely settled cores of census blocks with adjacent densely settled surrounding areas. When the core contains a population of 50,000 or more it is designated as an urbanized area. Core areas with populations between 25,000 and 50,000 are classified as urban clusters.

In these codes and definitions, cities and urbanized areas are defined first, just as Isserman

says. Towns and rural areas are then defined by their relationship to the urbanized areas.

The Rural School and Community Trust (RSCT) uses NCES and US Census data to

analyze “the contexts and conditions of rural education in each of the 50 states” (Johnson,

Showalter, Klein, & Lester, 2014, p. 1). According to an RSCT report, “9,765,385 public

school students were enrolled in rural school districts” in the 2010-11 school year. “That is

just over 20% of the nation’s total public school enrollment” (p. 1). Echoing a sentiment of

Donehower et al., Johnson et al. state, “meeting the needs of nearly ten million children is a

challenge and an obligation that demands and deserves the nation’s attention” (2014, p. 1).

The most recent RSCT report, the 2013-14 version, looks at the following aspects of

rural schools within each state of the United States (Johnson et al., 2014):

The importance of rural education (percent of schools, districts, and students in

rural areas, as well as percent of state education funds for rural districts)

46


Diversity of rural students and their families

Socioeconomic challenges facing rural communities

The educational policy context impacting rural schools

Educational outcomes of students in rural schools in each state

The simple fact that RSCT chose to report on these factors indicates these factors’

importance in rural education.

This thesis will not focus on specific, individual statistics from the RSCT report, but

will provide a few key facts, in order to provide the reader with some background

knowledge in education in rural areas. Johnson et al. (2014) find significance in the

following:

The scale and the scope of rural education in the United States continues to grow. We have reported increases in the total rural student population in the past five editions of Why Rural Matters, with growth rates that exceed those of non-rural districts as measured by both short term and longer-range trends. (p. 28)

They also add information about specific sub-groups of students. “More than two in five …

rural students live in poverty, more than one in four is a child of color, and one in eight has

changed residence in the previous 12 months” (p. 27). And,

The percentage of rural students eligible for free or reduced priced meals increased from 41.0% to 46.6% from 2008-09 to 2010-11 (an increase of nearly 603,000 students). Likewise, the percentage of rural minority students increased over that same time period by 127,151 (a 5.1% increase). Less dramatic but still noteworthy, the percentage of rural students qualifying for special education services increased from 12.1% to 12.8% (an increase of nearly 85,000 students). (p. 28)

With this information at hand, Johnson et al. conclude their implications thus:

Rural education is frustrating to those who wish it would conform to the oversimplifications that have long held sway in the discourse of policymakers and the public in general. Those oversimplifications do not stand in the face of the mounting evidence that rural education is becoming a bigger and even more complex part of our national educational landscape. As that evidence mounts, it is

47


becoming impossible to ignore the national relevance of these students, families, schools and communities. (p. 28)

With these national trends in mind, perhaps national, regional, and local educators and

policy makers will see greater importance in rural education.

Place based education as an option in rural America.Some educators, researchers, and historians spend a lot of time studying rural

education. One area of interest in rural education is the idea of sustaining rural

environments and their vitality. However, according to educator Robert Brooke (2012), “as

predominately practice, education points elsewhere: to history happening in other parts of

the world, to migration as a means of personal achievement in the corporate industrial

complex, to an ineffective form of citizenship” (p. 163). Brooke suggests place-based

education as “an alternative to migratory education-as-usual” (2012, p. 164). He describes

place-based education as “an approach to education that centers learning on local issues,

both cultural and geographical” that then “’spirals out’ to regional, national, even

international issues and ideas” because “local reality is almost always shaped by much

more widespread cultural, natural, and economic forces” (2012, p. 164).

Researchers and professors Devora Shamah and Katherine A. MacTavish (2009)

also believe place-based education is an approach appropriate for rural students:

The smallness and safety of rural communities promotes the development of place-based knowledge among the youth. Many youth who live in rural places have intimate knowledge of their communities and the surrounding areas both in terms of the natural landscapes, local culture, and values. (p. 1)

On the other hand, according to superintendent Thomas Butler and researcher Jacqueline

Edmondson (2012), some educators are wary of implementing place-based learning,

because it does not prepare students for government-mandated assessments. Butler and

48


Edmondson say that shirking away from place-based learning in order to prepare students

for mandated tests is an example of local knowledge being “ignored and dismissed,” and

rural educators relying on “outside experts” to mandate curricula (p. 226).

Butler and Edmondson believe that place-based education can provide

“opportunities to celebrate the diversity of rural life” (2012, p. 227). Shamah and

MacTavish refer to research about place-based learning that “has shown that using the

local natural ecology and projects within the community have positive results both in

improving academic achievement and in engaging youth in their school and their

community” (p. 3). Perhaps place-based education could provide positive opportunities for

children in rural areas.

Relationships in rural education.Relationships between schools and the local community may be important in rural

education in the United States. Superintendent of a rural school district Brent L. Winand

and university professor Carla Edlefson (2008) state the following:

The interdependence of the school and community meant that when the rural community thrived, the school had a broader and more reliable tax base and a more involved citizenry. Likewise, when the school system was strong, the community benefited through being able to maintain its population with graduates who could preserve and maintain the community. (p. 32)

Researcher Hobarat L. Harmon and university professor Kai Schafft (2009) echo Winand

and Edlefson’s thoughts on community, saying,

Rural schools, in particular, serve as symbols of community autonomy, vitality, and identity. Given their essentially integrative and interactive nature, schools naturally tend to enhance a sense of collective identity and attachment to place, and thus have socially developmental outcomes. (p. 5)

The importance of relationships and cooperation mentioned here reflects the universe

story mentioned previously.

49


With this importance of relationship in rural school settings, comes another factor –

the preparation of the rural education leader. Winand and Edlefson state, “The significant

responsibility of the school administrator in the rural setting is to build and cultivate the

relationship between the school and community through communication” (2008, p. 32).

Harmon and Schafft (2009) say something similar about leaders in rural education:

Leaders with a critical leadership of place support community as a context for learning, understand that schools and their local communities are inextricably linked, and that the ability of each to thrive is dependent upon the other. They work to conserve what is beneficial to the well being of students, families, and communities, while actively leading efforts that address the challenges and/or contradictions found in the local context. (p. 8)

Harmon and Schafft add that a “one-size-fits-all preparation programs for school

administrators—with the usual unspoken priority of serving the needs of urban schools—

are not adequate for serving schools and their communities in rural areas” (p. 6). They

continue by saying that rural education does not only focus on academic achievement:

Collaboration must extend beyond a singular focus on student achievement to a blended community and educational leadership strategy that takes as a fundamental assumption that ensuring the academic success of students, on the one hand, and the social and economic vitality of the rural community, on the other, are not mutually exclusive priorities, but are instead deeply and indeed inextricably connected. (Harmon & Schafft, 2009, p. 8)

The role of school administrators in rural setting may differ from the role many people

envision for a school leader.

50


Chapter Four: A New View of Leadership“We need to expand our search for the principles of organization to include what is

presently known about how the universe organizes”

- Margaret Wheatley, 2006, p. 8

This chapter addresses leadership in light of the worldview of the universe story.

The paradigm shift into cosmogenesis brings system-wide changes, including how people

guide each other.

The Old Way of LeadingWith Western thought wrapped up in the old paradigms of dualism, mechanism, and

economism, leaders of many organizations work in a way that fit that story. Leaders work

to create plans that result in predictable outcomes, specific timelines to be carried out, and

analyses that should solve complex problems. Leaders look at human-based organizations

as machines and break difficulties into parts, with each part to be solved by someone

different. Leaders gather numerical data to create models and analyze (Wheatley, 2006).

According to Wheatley (2006), “in Newtonian organizations, we’ve drawn boundaries

everywhere. We’ve created roles and accountabilities, specifying lines of authority and

limits to responsibilities” (p. 30). As noted in earlier chapters, Newtonian mechanistic

dualism is outdated as a way to look at the universe.

As leadership consultant John Heider (1985/2014) says, “natural law is blind, its

justice evenhanded… The same principle which underlies human beings underlies

everything equally” (p. 9). Therefore, mechanistic dualism is also outdated in relation to

51


leadership in organizations. Krishnamurti says that many adults hold assumptions and that

leaders must try to rid themselves of these assumptions:

To educate the educator—that is, to have him understand himself—is one of the most difficult undertakings, because most of us are already crystallized within a system of thought or a pattern of action; we have already given ourselves over to some ideology, to a religion, or to a particular standard of conduct. (1953/1981, p. 99)

Wheatley agrees that Newtonian-based leadership is not effective: “The lists and charts we

make do not capture experience. They only tell of our desire to control a reality that is

slippery and evasive and perplexing beyond comprehension” (p. 28). Heider says we must

let go of this old way of thinking in order to grow into a new paradigm: “When I let go of

what I am, I become what I might be. When I let go of what I have, I receive what I need”

(1985/2014, p. 43).

Leading in a New WorldPerhaps new insights into the world can inspire humans to work together in new

ways. Wheatley (2006) says that scientists’ new paradigm “maps are reliable guides to

lands of promise, where human creativity, wisdom and courage can be fully engaged in

creating healthy and enduring organizations and societies” (p. xii). I will now explore how

the universe story may guide human organizations and also how leaders may apply some

Montessori principles when working with adults.

Relationships in leadership.Just as relationships are key in education, they are also important in leadership and

working with human organizations. Ronald Hiefetz, professor of leadership at Harvard

University, differentiates between the “dominant view of leadership” and “adaptive

leadership (Vedantam, 2013). Hiefetz says that the dominant view of leadership, in which

52


the leader creates a vision and then convinces subordinates to solve the problem, only

works with technical problems, when “there is a right answer and expert knows what it is”

(Vedantum, 2013). He says that fluid, human-centered problems require adaptive

leadership, which relies on humans to solve the problem. He continues by stating that,

“leaders cannot impose change on people;” people must work together to create solutions

and make changes (Vedantam, 2013). Likewise, Wheatley says, “we need few descriptions

of tasks and instead learn how to facilitate process. We need to become savvy about how to

foster relationships, how to nurture growth and development” (2006, p. 39).

Growth and development of each individual can lead to growth of the organization.

Heider says, “Since all creation is a whole, separateness is an illusion. Like it or not, we are

team players. Power comes through cooperation, independence through service, and a

greater self through selflessness” (1985/2014, p. 77). Cooperation within the group is key.

Wheatley (2006) continues by saying, “a system is composed of parts, but we cannot

understand a system by looking only at its parts. We need to work with the whole of a

system, even as we work with individual parts or isolated problems” (p. 139). In other

words, in a human-based organization, the system is comprised of individual people, but

we cannot understand the workings of the system by only looking at the individuals.

Rather, leaders need to work with the entire system, shifting focus from the whole to the

parts and back again.

Leaders’ relationships can bring forth creativity.Relationships are key to human organizations because relationships lead to

creativity for the group, just as they do elsewhere in the universe. Wheatley states,

“knowledge grows inside relationships, from ongoing circles of exchange where

53


information is not just accumulated by individuals, but is willingly shared” (p. 104).

Systems biologist Uri Alon agrees that relationships are key to creativity. He says that when

another person says, “yes, and…” to someone who is struggling with a problem, this

support helps bypass the inner critic of the thinker. The supporter accepts the thinker’s

ideas and builds on them. When the inner critic is bypassed, the thinker can come to

creativity and unexpected discoveries (ted.com, 2013). Cooperation, rather than

competition, leads to more creativity in humans.

Creativity also comes from a group’s chaos.Another source of creativity is chaos. Heider says, “the well-run group is not a

battlefield of egos. Of course there will be conflict, but these energies become creative

forces” (1985/2014, p. 91). He also says, “When I feel most destroyed, I am about to grow”

(p. 43). Wheatley agrees: “The things we fear most in organizations—disruptions,

confusion, chaos—need not be interpreted as signs that we are about to be destroyed.

Instead, these conditions are necessary to awaken creativity” (2006, p. 21).

Alon calls this time of chaos, this time of confusion, being in “the cloud.” When

researchers are in “the cloud,” they are on the boundary between the known and the

unknown, and they cannot see out of the cloud. This, says Alon, is when someone else

needs to support the person in the cloud. Again, Wheatley says,

It is chaos’ great destructive energy that dissolves the past and gives us the gift of a new future. It releases us from the imprisoning patterns of the past by offering us its wild ride into newness. Only chaos creates the abyss in which we can recreate ourselves. (2006, p. 119)

When a group comes to a point of chaos, perhaps the leader could allow some confusion to

arise. Perhaps it will lead to creative, dynamic solutions.

54


Autopoiesis in human-based organizations.If other living things create themselves with autopoiesis, can human groups do the

same? Capra says autopoiesis is “a network of production processes, in which the function

of each component is to participate in the production or transformation of other

components of the network” (1996, p. 98). Can humans be these components that

participate with others?

If organizations work as autopoietic systems, then, just as with other autopoietic

systems, the human organization works within its environment to create itself. Here,

Wheatley challenges leaders to create the organizational culture that can lead to

autopoiesis for the group:

I want to use the time formerly spent on detailed planning and analysis to create the organizational conditions for people to set a clear intent, to agree on how they are going to work together, and then practice to become better observers, learners, and colleagues as they co-create with their environment. (Wheatley, 2006, p. 46)

Heider echoes Wheatley’s sentiment regarding the work of the group in an uplifting

environment when he says, “The wise leader is not collecting a string of successes. The

leader is helping others to find their own success. There is plenty to go around. Sharing

success with others is very successful” (1985/2014, p. 161). The leader, the group, and the

dynamic group environment form autopoietic relationships.

Part of the group environment includes the shared vision of the group. Harmon and

Schafft mention the importance of community-based vision when they say, “leaders of

school districts and schools in rural places need a clear vision of a mutually beneficial,

collaborative school-community building process” (2009, p. 8). Wheatley states multiple

times that vision is key: “The miraculous enters in as the diversity of the group coalesces

into a complex but unified vision of what they want to create together” (2006, p. 68).

55


Wheatley continues by saying that organizations in which participants co-create are

more effective than others, in which the leader simply doles out tasks. Wheatley states that

when members of a group participate in a shared vision, they feel ownership: “personal

connections to the organization, the powerful emotions of belonging that inspire people to

contribute” (2006, p. 68). Wheatley adds, “new ideas can emerge as powerful insights if we

allow them the freedom to self-organize” (2006, p. 90).

Subtle influence in leadership. This idea of vision as part of an autopoietic environment fits with the idea of subtle,

unseen influences affecting group dynamics. Wheatley says the following:

Leaders have been encouraged to consider the impact of non-material forces in organizations—culture, values, vision, ethics. Each of these concepts describes a quality of organizational life that can be observed in behavior yet doesn’t exist anywhere independent of those behaviors. (2006, p. 54)

Heider adds that subtlety can help when there is discord in the group: “Gentle

interventions, if they are clear, overcome rigid resistances. … Generally speaking, the

leader’s consciousness sheds more light on what is happening than any number of

interventions or explanations” (1985/2014, p. 85). In other words, the leader’s simple

awareness and acknowledgement of a difficulty may help solve the problem more easily

than a more forceful intervention.

Wheatley also brings up the idea of fields within organizations. The organization’s

vision may be one field, and there are others that may affect the participants in an

organization. She says,

We can never see a field, but we can easily see its influence by looking at behavior. To learn what’s in the field, look at what people are doing. They have picked up the messages, discerned what is truly valued, and then shaped their behavior accordingly. (2006, p. 55)

56


Heider also sees value in fields within an organization: “Pay attention to silence. What is

happening when nothing is happening in a group? That is the group field” (1985/2014, p.

21). He adds, “People’s speech and actions are figural events. They give the group form and

content. The silences and empty spaces, on the other hand, reveal the group’s essential

mood, the context for everything that happens” (p. 21).

Leading with uncertainties.In leadership, uncertainties are linked with the autopoietic process. If human

organizations are self-making, then we cannot predict with certainty. Wheatley says that

we do not have the ability to predict because “the environment and our future remain

uncreated until we engage with the present” (2006, p. 38). Krishnamurti says, “between

now and the future there is an immense gap in which many influences are at work upon

each one of us” (1953/1981, p. 23). Heider adds, “Nobody has all the answers. Knowing

that you do not know everything is far wiser than thinking that you know a lot when you

really don’t” (1985/2014, p. 141).

Again, just as in the universe story, uncertainties can give hope. Wheatley says the

following about accepting uncertainties:

Instead of the ability to analyze and predict, we need to know how to stay acutely aware of what’s happening now, and we need to be better, faster learners from what just happened. Agility and intelligence are required to respond to the incessant barrage of frequent, unplanned changes. (2006, p. 38)

Heider asks, “The wise leader knows that everything comes and goes. So why grasp or

cling? Why worry or cringe? Why live in a fantasy of what might happen” (1985/2014, p.

99)?

57


Thoughts on Montessori LeadershipInsights of Montessori education and ideas about leadership can integrate with one

another and I believe that Montessori education principles relate closely to leadership.

Freedom with responsibility.One principle of Montessori education gives both freedom and responsibility to

children in Montessori environments. Montessori says that an “essential condition is

freedom to act in a prepared environment where the child can be intelligently active”

(1948/1989, p. 16). Some observers of Montessori’s students asked Montessori about

“those small children who remain orderly and quiet, though they were free to choose their

occupations” ” (1955/1989, p. 28). When observers asked her about this phenomenon,

Montessori “could at the time only reply, ‘It is freedom which produces it’” (1955/1989, p.

28). MM Montessori Jr. adds that, in a Montessori environment, “instead of

competitiveness, there is cooperation, and this enhances the children’s feeling of security …

Respect for others and for the environment comes as a natural by-product of the freedom

with a community they experience” (1976/1992, p. 90). So, within the prepared

environment, children are given much freedom.

MM Montessori Jr. adds that each child’s individual freedom must be balanced. He

says, “too much individual freedom leads to chaos; too much uniformity, imposed by adults,

leads to impersonal conformity or to rebellion” (1976/1992, p. 24). He also says the needs

of the group must be at the forefront: “The balance between freedom for the individual and

the needs of the group is [a] special feature of social education in the Montessori method”

(p. 24). So, the child has freedom to act, as long as the needs of the group are met.

58


Montessori says that people who have passed through complete phases of

development will become fully developed humans. Describing such 18- to 24-year-olds,

Montessori says,

The individual should be the [human] who knows how to make [his or her] own choice of action, having passed to perfection the preceding phases. [He or she] should be as a live spark and aware of the open gate to the potentialities of prospective human life and of its own possibilities and responsibilities. The aspiration of such a [human] cannot limit itself to personal advantage. The self becomes secondary. The tendency must be for the whole of humanity. (1938/1971, 11)

Here, at this later stage of development, responsibility grows from the person’s immediate

contacts to “the whole of humanity.” In light of our new understanding of Earth and the

Universe, I might add that human responsibility also includes responsibility for Earth.

How might this balance between freedom and responsibility look in organizations of

adults? Wheatley says that, once a shared vision has been established, “we need to invoke

contribution through freedom, trusting that people can make sense of the information

because they know their jobs, and they know the organizational or team purpose” (2006, p.

107). Heider adds, “keep in mind that Tao means how: how things happen. But how-things-

happen is not the same as what-should-l-do. No one can tell you what to do. That is your

freedom. That is your responsibility” (1985/2014, p. 145).

Montessori professor at Xavier University Ginger McKenzie says that school leaders

may embrace transitional leadership, in which all members of the community embrace “a

mutual belief and value system” and “focus on what works best for their school” in unity

(2006). Mackenzie says that with transitional leadership in a school environment, rather

than traditional faculty meetings led by an administrator, “all members of the faculty

should plan and take part in a community meeting to help strengthen the equity between

59


faculty and administrator” and that all faculty members have input on the meeting agenda.

McKenzie also suggests that teachers and administrators work together to not only set

professional development goals for the teacher, but also to set a timeline. The

administrator can use the timeline to check that the teacher is meeting his or her

responsibilities toward the goals (2006). This, to me, is a specific example of adults

working with freedom (to set their own goals and establish the timeline) with

responsibility (to make sure they strive toward the goals).

Leader as observer.Another facet of Montessori education is that adults are not at the center of the

Montessori classroom. Instead, the class is child-centered. “Montessori described the

adult’s function in the classroom as one of guiding in contrast to teaching” (MM Montessori

Jr., 1976/1992, p. 23). Montessori says, “once the children’s interest has been aroused… the

teacher withdraws into the background” (1946/1989, p. 68). Heider echoes Montessori’s

sentiment: “Don’t do too much. Don’t be too helpful” (1985/2014, p. 127). He adds that

observation is important when he says, “paying attention, allowing a natural unfolding, and

standing back most of the time, the leader sees the event arrive at a satisfactory

conclusion” (p. 127). Again, Heider says, “what we call leadership consists mainly of

knowing how to follow. The wise leader stays in the background and facilitates other

people’s process” (p. 131).

In a Montessori school, an administrator may take on the withdrawn observer role

while supporting the faculty. McKenzie suggests that an administrator may use clinical

supervision to help a teacher who is having a difficulty in the classroom. After the teacher

describes what he or she sees in the classroom to the administrator, the administrator

60


observes in the teacher’s classroom. During the observation, the administrator watches

specific things, based what the teacher has previously said. The administrator “records

activity in nonjudgmental language, noting exactly what is said by the teacher” (McKenzie,

2006). Next, the teacher reads through the principal’s notes, noting significant sections.

Finally, the teacher and administrator come back together in a “post-observation

conference.” The principal asks the teacher what he or she learned by reading the

observation notes, then the teacher comes up with his or her own plan of action to address

the difficulty (McKenzie, 2006). To me, this example of leadership in a school sounds very

similar to how a Montessori guide may address a student.

Respect for each group member.Basic and profound respect for each child as an individual is another principle of

Montessori education. Montessori repeatedly refers to children in a tone of respect, awe,

and wonder: “the child’s constructive energy, alive and dynamic…” (1946/1989, p. 2); “the

magic does not lie in [the Montessori materials], but in the psychology of the child…”

(1955/1989, p. 21); “the child performs work with inner wisdom…” (1949/1992, p. 16).

According to Montessori, “the teacher who presents herself to the children should

remember that they are great people, to whom she owes understanding and respect”

(Montessori, 1946/1989, p. 68).

With deep respect for the child, Montessori says that guides in a Montessori setting

do not hold authority over the children: “it is responsibility that a leader should feel, not

the authority of his position” (1946/1989, p. 66). Heider says the same of leaders: “it is a

mistake to believe that a great leader is above others. Paradoxically, greatness comes from

61


knowing how to be lowly and empty and receptive and of service” (1985/2014, p. 121). He

adds this:

The wise leader is of service: receptive, yielding, following. The group member’s vibration dominates and leads, while the leader follows. … It is the job of the leader to be aware of the group member’s process; it is the need of the group member to be received and paid attention to. (p. 121)

Here, the leader is being respectful of the group member, just as Montessori is respectful of

the child.

Leaders in the New Universe StoryLeadership, in the new universe story, is less about forcing people to follow the

leader’s ideas, and more about supporting a group of people to co-create reality together.

Wheatley says, “people who are deeply connected to a cause don’t need directives, rewards,

or leaders to tell them what to do. Inflamed, passionate, and working with like-minded

others, they create increasingly extreme means to support their cause” (2006, p. 181).

Why might leaders adopt this new form of leadership, by co-creating a shared

vision, supporting the group, and expecting each individual to participate fully? Education

professor and Montessorian Philip Gang (2011) says that he and his wife Marsha Morgan

have observed students’ inner development, through the students’ growth in a Montessori

environment. Gang says,

I have identified eight of these qualities or attributes of the mind/heart and heart/mind that develop in children and adults from mentoring in an authentic Montessori place of learning. I am sure the list can be extended. (2011, p. 25)

Gang (2011) lists the following attributes:

Empathy and Love

Hope

Courage

62


Confidence

Creativity

Awe & Compassion

Silence, self-reflection

Gratitude

Perhaps the previously mentioned leadership qualities draw such characteristics out of

others.

63


Chapter Five: A Research Approach“If you think you know what you will find,

Then you will find nothing.

If you expect nothing,

Then you will always be surprised.”

(Kushner, 1977/2003, ch. 10)

NeurophenomenologyBiologist and researcher Francisco Varela spent decades investigating the

interrelationships among biological processes, subjectivity, and consciousness. With his

understanding of these concepts, Varela “proposed a scientific research program, which he

called neurophenomenology.” Neurophenomenological research addresses “the issue of the

relationships between our subjective experience and our objective bio-physical

embodiment” (Rudrauf, Lutz, Cosmelli, Lachaux, & Le Van Quyen, 2003). Put another way

by Bockelman, Reinerman-Jones, and Gallagher (2013), “neurophenomenological methods

integrate objective and subjective data in ways that retain the statistical power of

established disciplines (like cognitive science) while embracing the value of first-person

reports on experience.”

Autopoiesis.Varela and biologist Humberto Maturana believe that autopoiesis is the organization

common to all living systems (as cited in Capra, 1996, p. 98). Each component of a living

system “participates in the production or transformation of other components in the

network” (Capra, 1996, p. 98). Social scientist and writer Margaret Wheatley (2006) states,

64


“autopoiesis is life’s fundamental process for creating and renewing itself, for growth and

change” (p. 20).

An essential characteristic of autopoietic systems is their organizational closure,

meaning the all the components of the system are created by other components within the

system. A system that is organizationally closed may be “open with regard to the flow of

energy and matter” (Capra, 1996, p. 167), meaning energy and matter go into and out of the

system, but the system’s components establish the system’s order and behavior. According

to Varela and Goguen (1977), organizational closure “creates a minimal distinction

between an interior and an exterior, and guarantees the continuous dynamical, mechanic

generation of the stable ‘internal coherence’ of an autonomous system” (as cited in

Rudrauf, et al., 2003). Rudrauf, et al., (2003) give an example of organizational closure

within higher organisms, in which each physiological system (cardio-vascular, respiratory,

etc.) and their subsystems act with each other in a network of responses.

Structural coupling.Rudrauf, et al., (2003) continue by explaining, “organizational closure specifies the

domain of interaction of the system with its surroundings, conditioning its possible ways of

coupling with the environment.” Structural coupling is another characteristic of living,

autopoietic systems. Each system couples with other systems and with its wider

environment. Each living system preserves its network of organization, while structurally

changing. Continuous structural changes include cyclical self-renewal and transformative

(non-cyclical) changes (Capra, 1996, p. 218-219).

Because living beings produce and transform themselves, they continually adapt,

learn, and develop (Capra, 1996, p. 220). With these transformations and adaptations,

65


living things create “a self-produced identity” (Rudrauf, et al., 2003). According to Rudrauf

et al. (2003), this self-made identity changes, depending on time and relationships within

the environment.

Autopoiesis, applied to human groups.According to Capra (1996), autopoiesis was initially studied within the context of

single cells and with computer simulations. When applying this theory to human social

interactions, some problems arise: “human social systems exist not only in the physical

domain but also in a symbolic social domain” (Capra, 1996, p. 211). Thus, humans can

choose how to interact with one another and their environments; molecules, on the other

hand, follow explicit natural laws (Capra, 1996, p. 212). Wheatley explains this difficulty

thus: “While we humans observe and count separate selves, and pay a great deal of

attention to the differences that seem to divide us, in fact we survive only as we learn how

to participate in a web of relationships” (2006, p. 20).

Perhaps by looking at human interactions with a systems mindset, rather than with

linear thinking, autopoiesis in human societies may be possible. With linear thinking, we

humans see ourselves as separate from each other and from our environment, and systems

thinking debunks that belief. Linear thinking may not be sufficient to resolve systemic

problems (Mariotti, 1999). A linear mindset may be one reason it can be difficult to apply

autopoiesis to human social interactions. So, can an autopoietic, systems-thinking approach

be applied to human sciences? If so, how?

Neurophenomenology as a way to approach autopoiesis in human societies.Neurophenomenological research may be one way to address the difficulties of

applying autopoietic principles to human social interactions. Neurophenomenology’s dual

66


approach – both objective data points and subjective experience – may help bridge a gap

between traditional research (based on linear approaches) that looks for the objective and

a systems-thinking, subjective viewpoint.

Varela (1996) proposes a methodology for reducing “the distance between

subjective and objective” (as cited in Rudrauf, et al., 2003). Rudrauf, et al., (2003) describe

Varela’s approach in four parts:

1. Attitude. Involved parties must suspend previous beliefs, thoughts, and

expectations. Varela (1996) states that, without expected conclusions,

neurophenomenological research “allows a new aspect or insight into the

phenomenon to unfold” (as cited in Rudrauf, et al., 2003).

2. Intuition. The subjects must “gain intimacy with the domain of investigation”

(Bockelman, et al., 2013). In other words, the subjects must know the field of study

well, in order to get closer to the truth.

3. Invariants, or constants. When a subject offers a description, the description should

be inter-subjectively validated. This means that other subjects validate descriptions

within the research, and then these common descriptions become invariants

(Rudrauf, et al., 2003 and Bockelman, et al., 2013).

4. Training. This training is a point of disagreement among different proponents of

neurophenomenology. Varela (1996) states that the subjects must be trained to

reach necessary attitudes and intuition. This training would help the researcher get

to a point of “stability” (as cited in Rudrauf, et al., 2003). On the other hand,

Brockelman, et al., (2013) state that the experimenter can, with open-ended

questions, direct the subject to get to a precise description. Claire Petitmengin

67


(2006), a former doctoral student of Varela’s, has conducted research that suggests,

“phenomenological interview techniques can help untrained participants attend to

and articulate their experience” (as cited in Bockelman, et al., 2013). Either way, a

goal is for the subjects to provide a clear description of their subjective experiences.

Why neurophenomenology?So, neurophenomenology integrates subjective and objective experiences. But, why

might neurophenomenology be important? Why might researchers want to use its

methods?

Bockelman et al. (2013) posit that neurophenomenological research, by including

both first-person and third-person viewpoints, could provide a better understanding of

human experience. Gang (1989) states that the relationship between the observer and the

observed (object, phenomenon, person, etc.) alters reality. In other words, an observer is

also a participant in reality.

As noted in earlier chapters, in living autopoietic systems, all the components

interact and create each other. Bockelman et al. (2013) continue thus:

“neurophenomenology can give us better ways of handling first-person data in a reliable

and productive way, providing clarifications and classifications that are not captured by

typical cognitive science approaches.” Thus, in a human society, people’s first-hand

experiences are part of human experience; we cannot look only at objective data when a

living person is involved.

My First Excursion into NeurophenomenologyTo practice conducting neurophenomenological research, I videotaped a lesson that

I presented. Then I watched the video a few times. The first time, I observed with a third-

68


person perspective; I observed the children and recorded what they experienced. Later, I

watched the video again with a first-person perspective, noting my own experience of

presenting the lesson. I videotaped the lesson in December of 2014.

Setting and characters.I presented and videotaped this lesson at Ross Montessori School in Carbondale,

Colorado. Carbondale is a town in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado, approximately 170

miles west of Denver. Ross Montessori is a charter school that opened in Carbondale in

2005. I have taught in a Lower Elementary classroom at Ross Montessori since its

inaugural year. This lesson is one I present every other year or every third year, depending

on the group of students in my class. I do not present it each year because I prefer that

students have forgotten about it (at least to some degree). Perhaps this adds to the

suspense and the children’s sense of wonder during the presentation and while the

children use the materials.

For this neurophenomenological research, I presented Our Place in the Universe to a

group of seven children, ages seven and eight. These students have various educational

backgrounds. They have worked with me for .5 to 2.5 school years, in a Lower Elementary

Montessori classroom. Hollis, age 7, and Claire, age 8, have attended Ross Montessori

School since the age of three, and attended a Montessori toddler program previous to that.

Both of these girls have been in our Lower Elementary class for 1.5 years. Olivia, age 7,

joined our school this school year, so has been with us for one semester. This is her first

Montessori experience. Sam, age 8, has been in Montessori schools since kindergarten, and

joined our Lower Elementary class 1.5 years ago. Mackenzie, Amélie, and Logan have each

been in our Lower Elementary class for 2.5 years. Mackenzie, age 8, and Amélie, age 9, both

69


female, began their Montessori experience in primary (preschool) environments. Logan,

age 9, male, joined Ross Montessori in kindergarten.

With their varying experiences in Montessori education, each of these children also

has different background knowledge about geography. This school year, they have all

studied the Universe, the Milky Way, our Solar System, and Earth as a planet. All the

“returning students,” who were in our class last school year (all of the students in this

lesson except for Olivia) have also studied the Western hemisphere, the continents, the

United States, Colorado, and where Carbondale is in Colorado. I am unsure of Olivia’s

previous knowledge of these subjects. None of the students remembered seeing this

particular lesson before. I presented it to the older students in the class during Amélie’s,

Logan’s, and Mackenzie’s first year in our class. They told me they did not remember seeing

it two years ago.

Material presented.I chose to videotape a lesson that presents a sense of ‘place.’ It is a geography lesson

that is intended to link the big picture with each individual child. In our class, we call the

lesson, Our Place in the Universe. The materials consist of a set of twelve nesting boxes,

specially prepared for the lesson. Much like a set of matryoshka dolls, each box is slightly

smaller than the previous one, and fits inside the consecutively larger box.

Figure 4: Our Place in the Universe nesting boxes

70


Each box represents a different place in which we live. The largest box represents

the Universe. Inside the box, I have taped a compilation of photos that scientists say shows

the entire Universe. Inside the lid, I have placed a short typed description of the Universe

and how the photograph was taken. The next ten successively smaller boxes contain

another picture and short description of another, successively smaller place we are – the

Milky Way galaxy, our Solar System, Earth, the Western hemisphere, North America, the

United States, Colorado, the town of Carbondale, Ross Montessori School, our classroom.

The final smallest box is a glass box with a tiny mirror in the bottom and simply the word

“YOU!” on a typed card inside the lid.

Third-person observations.As a Montessori directress, I have practiced observing children and their

interactions for over thirteen years. Educator Maria Montessori states the importance of

third-person observation thus:

The first step to take in order to become a Montessori teacher is to shed omnipotence and to become a joyous observer. If the [teachers] can really enter into the joy of seeing things being born and growing under [their] own eyes, and can

Figure 5: Close-up of the first three boxes - Universe, Milky Way galaxy, and Solar System

71


clothe [themselves] in the garment of humility, many delights are reserved for [them] that are denied to those who assume infallibility and authority in front of a class. (1948/1989, p. 84)

During my work with The Institute for Educational Studies at Endicott College (TIES), I

have conducted some observational practice, in order to hone my observation techniques

further. My classmates and I have observed different phenomena – the goings-on in a

public place, a natural phenomenon, a living being (non-human), and ourselves as an

observer. During this observation practice, our professors challenged us to find

assumptions we had made while observing. If we bring assumptions to an observation, we

are not objective.

Since our observation practice, I have been more aware of assumptions I bring into

my elementary classroom. Because I have spent much time with the children, I assume that

I know their motivations, feelings, or desires. I have been working hard to notice these

assumptions within myself and set them aside – to observe more objectively. What is the

child actually doing? How is the child interacting with the material? In what ways are these

children interacting with each other?

While first watching the video of the My Place in the Universe presentation, I used

my understanding of observation to try to truly, simply observe from a third-person

standpoint. I tried not to make assumptions, just observations.

Hollis, Claire, Logan, and Olivia sit along the edge of two rugs I had already set out.

Amélie, Claire, and Mackenzie sit slightly behind them, in between the children in the front

row. Sam sits up on his knees.

I introduced the lesson by saying, “This is a geography lesson. Do any of you

remember what geography means?” Logan immediately raised his hand. Mackenzie,

72


Amélie, and Hollis also raised their hands. Claire ‘s forehead wrinkled and Olivia looked at

the other kids, whose hands were up.

I called on Logan, who answered the question with, “continents and stuff.” I

acknowledged that continents are part of geography.

Then I called on Hollis, and all the other students looked at her. She said,

“Geography… geo means Earth…” then paused.

Mackenzie raised her hand then and I pointed to her. She said, “Earth write.”

I said, “Yes, geography is when we write about the Earth or we draw Earth. Maps are

a big part of geography.” Various children nodded their heads.

Once we got into the lesson, I showed the children the picture inside each successive

nesting box, and talked about the place the picture represents. As mentioned above, the

first picture is a composite picture of the Universe. I opened the box and showed the

picture. Each child looked inside the box. Logan quietly said, “Whoa,” and looked at Olivia

next to him. She raised her eyebrows at him after she looked at the picture. As I set the first

box up on rug, with the description in the box lid lying down and the picture in the box

bottom sitting up, all the children watched.

When I showed the picture of the Milky Way, and said that the Milky Way galaxy is

inside the Universe, Logan, Olivia, and Mackenzie all looked back at the Universe picture

from the previous box.

Amélie raised her hand almost immediately after seeing the picture. She asked,

“What’s a central bulge?” (Central bulge is labeled on the picture.)

I replied, “We know another word for that. Do you remember it?” Logan and Hollis

raised their hands immediately.

73


Amélie scrunched her nose; then her face softened as she said, “Oh, the nucleus.”

(We had previously learned about types of galaxies, and that some of them have a nucleus

in the center.) Again, as I set up the box with the picture facing the children, they all

watched.

When I showed the box with the Solar System and said that our Solar System is in

the Orion Arm of the Milky Way galaxy, I pointed at the previous box, with the picture of

the Milky Way. When I pointed, Amélie, Claire, Sam, Logan, and Olivia looked at the picture

of the Milky Way again.

Logan asked, “Why do they call it the Orion Arm?”

I replied, “I don’t know how it got its name. That’s a good question.”

This time, as I put the box on the rug, visible to the children, Logan tilted his head

and silently read the words in the lid of the box, which was lying flat on the rug. His lips

moved as he read but he didn’t speak aloud. During those same few seconds, both

Mackenzie and Olivia looked at the picture of the Solar System, then the Milky Way, then

the Universe. At that time, Sam, Claire, Hollis, and Amélie were watching as I opened the

next consecutive box.

When I opened the box to show Earth and said, “Earth is one of the planets in our

Solar System,” Mackenzie chuckled quietly. I added, “We knew that already, right?”

Every child nodded and Mackenzie added, “’Cuz we’ve been studying that.”

Again, as I put the material on the rug, every child looked at the picture. Claire

looked at some of the previous photos, too.

When I introduced the box with the Western Hemisphere, Logan quietly said with

me, “hemisphere.”

74


Claire noted, “There are bumps on it.”

After a pause, Logan replied, “That represents the terrain.”

Again, everyone’s eyes were on the box as I placed it on the rug.

I introduced the North America box, and everyone looked at it as I showed it and

placed it on the rug. Then, as I opened the next box, when Mackenzie saw that there was

still another box inside of it she rolled her eyes and mouthed the word, “whoa!” silently to

herself. She looked back at all the boxes again. Simultaneously, Hollis giggled and looked

across all the boxes.

For the next box, I introduced it with, “In North America, we live in the …” and

paused.

Each student said “United States,” and Logan continued with “of America.”

When I clarified, “That’s our country,” Amélie nodded her head.

As I opened the next box, I said, “This must be the last one.”

Claire, Logan, Hollis, Olivia, and Sam shook their heads and Claire said, “no,” with a

smile on her face. Then I opened it and the children could see there was yet a smaller box

inside… each child smiled and a few quietly laughed.

As I introduced the state of Colorado, Mackenzie shook her head and smiled. Logan

smiled, looked at all of the boxes, and rubbed his hands together. Olivia pointed to each

box, from the Universe to the smaller ones.

Logan asked, “How many are there?” No one answered. Instead, all the kids smiled

and looked to see if there was yet another box inside the next.

The box representing the town of Carbondale elicited more smiles, and Logan said,

“Ooh, there’s Mount Sopris.” (Mount Sopris is a tall, distinctive mountain just outside of

75


town. Carbondale is in the valley, and Mount Sopris is visible from anywhere in town and as

you approach town from any direction.)

When Olivia saw the picture, she said, “Oh,” with a big smile on her face.

Amélie raised her hand to ask me, “Did you take that picture?”

I replied, “I didn’t . . . I think it’s taken from up on top of Mushroom Rock. Have any

of you done that hike before?”

All the students except Olivia said, “Yes!”

Olivia scrunched up her forehead and quietly said, “Mushroom Rock?” then, “Oh,

Mushroom Rock hike, yes.” Logan looked at her and nodded.

This time, as I opened the next box, the children noticed that there was still another

smaller box inside it. Every one of the kids quietly laughed and Mackenzie quietly said,

“What?” as she looked back over the set of boxes on the rug.

I showed the picture of Ross Montessori, and Logan asked, “Did you take that?”

When I responded, “I did take this one,” Olivia audibly laughed and the other

children smiled. Claire, Hollis, Mackenzie, and Sam looked over all the boxes again. Olivia

Figure 6: The four smallest boxes - town of Carbondale, Ross Montessori School, our classroom, and YOU!

76


pinched her thumb and index finger together, looking through her fingers as she looked at

the picture of the school inside the tiny box.

As I opened the next box, Olivia quietly whispered, “This isn’t the last one,” while

shaking her head. Amélie and Logan quietly laughed. All the other kids smiled. Amélie,

Claire, and Sam leaned far forward to see the picture of our classroom.

Mackenzie asked, “Did you take that one too?” I did.

Logan said, “Oh, I remember the old carpet. But that’s from now, right?” I nodded.

Logan turned around to Mackenzie and whispered something. She shrugged her shoulders,

smiled and nodded.

As mentioned above, the tiniest box is a glass box with a mirror in the bottom and a

card that simply says, “YOU!” on the lid. As I moved this box to show it to each child, Hollis

smiled, Amélie chuckled, Sam moved around until he saw his own reflection then smiled.

Claire, Logan, and Mackenzie each smiled. Olivia moved and then waved at her own

reflection.

Before I had put the smallest box on the rug with the others, Logan looked at the

largest boxes, and said, “Universe, galaxy, Solar System, Earth, continent . . .” At continent,

Claire joined in and said, “continent of North America, country of United States,” etc. At

country, the rest of the students joined and said the rest of the places, somewhat in unison.

Olivia and Logan started counting the boxes, and Logan said, “There are twelve of

them.”

Finally, I referred to the beginning of the lesson and reminded them that this is

geography; it tells where we are. I then asked the students how they might want to record

77


this work, if they choose to do so. They came up with various ideas – making a book,

creating a poster, drawing the pictures, and writing sentences.

Figure 7: Emmet's follow-up work: One eight-year old's record

Figure 8: Close-up of Emmet's work: Solar System and Earth

Figure 9: Close-up of Emmet's work: Carbondale and Ross Montessori School

78


Olivia asked, “What’s the name of this work?”

I responded that we could call it My Place in the Universe or Our Place in the Universe.

Hollis noticed that the boxes go from bigger to smaller, and that the places

represented also are bigger to smallest.

Right after Hollis’ question, Amélie asked, “Is there anything bigger than the

Universe?”

Logan said, “Scientists aren’t sure.”

I agreed with Logan.

Mackenzie, shaping her hands and arms in a large ellipse, asked, “But how can

something be bigger than the Universe?”

I said that for a long time, scientists have thought the Universe was the biggest thing

there is, and that everything is part of the Universe. I mentioned that some scientists think

there may be other Universes outside our Universe.

The presentation lasted just under 10 minutes, with about seven minutes of that

being my presentation to the students and about three minutes of discussion after the

presentation.

First-person experience.After observing the presentation with an objective eye, I watched the video again,

recalling my experience. I tried to become aware, as Varela discusses in an interview from

2000 with economist Claus Otto Scharmer. In the interview, Varela points to a core process,

involving three cyclical steps: suspension, redirection, and letting go. Suspension is

“removing ourselves from the habitual stream and taking a break.” With suspension, “the

new” can come forth: “emerging events, contents, patterns, gestures” and Varela says we

79


can redirect our attention to these new emerging patterns. Finally, Varela states, “it’s only

when you don’t hold on to the redirection that you can go back to suspension” (Scharmer,

2000). This is what Varela calls letting go.

As mentioned previously, identity may change with time and experience. Varela

seems to agree, saying that these gestures of becoming aware are “who we are as human

beings, necessarily going through this cycle because we don’t have solid substance as

individuals”. He continues to relate this cycle not only to humans, but also to life: “Life is

constantly in this process of reaccommodation, and therefore this kind of cycle is at the

very core of what life is all about” (Sharmer, 2000).

At the beginning of the My Place in the Universe lesson, when I asked the students

what they remembered geography to be, I was pleased that Logan remembered that

geography relates to “continents and stuff.” Then, when Hollis and Mackenzie used the

Greek etymology, I was very happy. I try to give students access to words they may not

have seen before by presenting Latin and Greek roots often. Whenever a student uses that

skill, I can imagine synapses forming in their brains.

Throughout the lesson, I sensed that the children were interested and curious about

the material, and that they were accessing previous knowledge and making connections. I

sensed their interest through their body language – leaning forward, peering into the boxes

to see the pictures, smiling, giggling. I could feel their curiosity through the questions they

asked. A few examples of the children making connections with previous knowledge

include Amélie answering her own question about the central bulge indicated on the Milky

Way picture, students giggling when I introduced the Earth as a planet and Mackenzie’s

80


explanation that we have been studying that, and Logan stating that the “bumpy-looking”

features on the maps represent the terrain.

This nesting box material gives the children various ways to think about “place” and

where we are. To think about the places in the first several boxes—the Universe, Solar

System, Earth, and the hemispheres—children need to access their imaginations. They can

use what they know and pictures they have seen to try to imagine the immensity of space

or how the planets revolve around the sun. Then, the final boxes are very tangible, very

accessible places—the town of Carbondale, our school, and our classroom. The children do

not need to imagine these places; they spend a lot of time in these places. They have done

the hike that leads to a vantage point, from which the whole town of Carbondale and Mount

Sopris can be seen. It is interesting to watch the wonder and awe on the children’s faces

when we talk about the Universe and also to see the light of recognition when we think

about Carbondale or our school. Both extremes—the large vastness and the personal

intimacy—enthuse the children.

When Logan initiated a review of what each box represents after I showed the last

box, I sat back and watched as the other students joined him. They got a little stuck when

trying to stay in unison, so I pointed to each box as they went. This helped keep them on

track. So, although I was guiding, I felt like the review was still initiated by one child and

the other children chose to join in.

I almost turned off the video recorder after the presentation, while the children

were talking about practicalities like the name of the work and how they could record the

work. But, about two minutes after I finished the presentation, Amélie asked one of the

more thoughtful questions, “Is there anything bigger than the Universe?”

81


As a teacher, I try to allow time and space for those types of big questions, and am

pleased when children jump from the material I have presented to ask a related, but

perhaps more abstract, question. I also appreciated that Amélie’s question is an example

for the students that we humans do not know all there is to know. Logan’s question about

the origin of the name of the Orion Arm of the Milky Way is an example that I do not know

all the answers, but Amélie’s question cannot be answered by anyone, at least not with

certainty.

Reflection on Neurophenomenological ResearchNeurophenomenological research may be an important step toward understanding

human consciousness in a more complete way. We humans are living beings, so autopoiesis

must be relatable to us. Varela’s methodology creates a framework for accessing more of

the human mind.

Conducting neurophenomenology with a lesson I know well was enlightening for

me. The third-person observations feel clinical and dry at times, and the first-person

experience appears to be“fluffy” at times. However, together, perhaps they lead us closer to

understanding.

82


Chapter Six: Putting it together“This is education, understood as a help to life; an education from birth, which feeds a

peaceful revolution and unites all in a common aim, attracting them as to a single center.”

(Montessori, 1949/1995, p. 17)

Public Montessori Schools in Rural and Remote AreasResearch conducted in the public Montessori community has almost exclusively

focused on schools in urban areas. In order to have an integrated view of public Montessori

education, I needed a clear picture of public Montessori schools in non-urban, non-

suburban settings as well. Whether located in a large urban area or in an isolated town, all

public Montessori schools are part of the larger Montessori community. This chapter hopes

to add to the knowledge base about public Montessori schools in rural and remote areas.

In my research thus far, I have found just one study that mentions public Montessori

schools in rural areas. The analysis, conducted by Ginny Riga, formerly of the South

Carolina Department of Education, compares test scores of Montessori students with non-

Montessori students in both urban Milwaukee schools and rural Laurens District #55

schools in South Carolina. Riga says, “even though Montessorians rely on many other

indicators of reaching the goal of teaching the whole child, standardized test scores cannot

be ignored” (2014). Riga’s results say, “significantly higher scores occurred in 20 out of 24

groups in Laurens and in all groups at Craig Montessori School in Milwaukee.” Also, “in

both locations, scores showed the most difference as Montessori students advanced to

higher grade levels, i.e., Upper Elementary to Middle School” (2014). Riga’s analysis of test

scores shows that Montessori students in both urban and rural environments scored

higher, in general, than their peer groups in traditional schools.

83


Wanting to know more about public Montessori schools in rural and remote areas, I

contacted Keith Whitescarver, director of NCMPS. Whitescarver did not know of any data

related to my inquiry. Whitescarver put me in contact with NCMPS researcher Rory

Schmidt, who merged data from the NCES database and the NCMPS database. This merge

did not work absolutely correctly, as 76 schools on the NCMPS list did not match with

schools in the NCES database. However, after looking more closely into these two

databases, I discovered that the schools were on both lists, but their names were listed in

slightly different ways on the two lists. I finished the merge by manually looking up each

school that had been missing. Now, the NCMPS database includes NCES locale codes for

each school. See Table 2.

84


Table 2: Public Montessori schools in the US, according to NCES locale codes

NCESlocale code

Numberof schools

Percentageof total

11 – large city 120 24.8%

12 – midsize city 65 13.5%

13 – small city 57 11.8%

21 – suburb oflarge city

73 15.1%

22 – suburb ofmidsize city

11 2.3%

23 – suburb ofsmall city

9 1.9%

31 – town, fringe 17 2.9%

32 – town, distant 14 2.9%

33 – town, remote

20 4.1%

41 – rural, fringe 62 12.8%

42 – rural, distant 28 5.8%

43 – rural, remote 10 2.1%

total 483

All the data explored so far—from NCES, NCMPS, RSCT, and Riga—adds to the

objective knowledge about public Montessori schools in rural settings. I started this

research wanting to know more about public Montessori schools in rural and

geographically isolated areas. Now that I know about NCES locale codes, I can redefine my

interest as public Montessori schools in rural areas and remote towns (locale codes 33, 41,

42, and 43).

85


The preceding sections look at objective data regarding public Montessori schools in

rural and remote areas. According to the ideas of neurophenomenological research, some

subjective input may add to this understanding even more. My experiences in Cincinnati

public schools, Denver public schools, and at Ross Montessori in Carbondale, Colorado give

me a subjective viewpoint. To gain more perspective, I also interviewed leaders of three

public Montessori schools in rural and remote areas. I will first share my subjective

experiences, and then share insights from school administrators.

My Experience in Public Montessori Schools, in Both Large Cities and Remote TownsWith my own experiences in both remote and urban areas, I have noticed some

challenges and advantages for Montessori schools in remote towns or rural areas.

Some advantages I have experienced include:

Having open space nearby for field study. Botany, water studies, poetry writing, etc.

can easily be conducted outside. The outside experience, in natural settings, helps

lead to integration of subjects. (See above example with botany experiments.)

Knowing the entire school community. We teachers run into our students and their

families at the grocery store, at restaurants, and town events. This fall, I met two

women at a wedding, and their nieces have been in my class for the past four years,

combined. The small community helps me feel integrated into the children’s lives.

Many field trips center on outdoor learning. Some examples include visiting a ranch,

stream study with an ecologist guide, and snow studies with beginning avalanche

training.

Some challenges I have experienced include:

86


Finding quality professional development opportunities. Workshops, guest

speakers, and education conferences are typically held in larger cities. On a related

note, if a Montessori school is in an isolated area, it is also harder to observe in other

schools for inspiration and ideas.

Not many opportunities for field trips to quality art, science, or history museums.

Although there are small museums around Carbondale, many of the tour guides are

volunteers, and are not as well informed as guides in larger museums.

Recruiting professionals with Montessori training and public school credentials.

Interviews with Leaders of Public Montessori schools in rural areas and remote townsTo add to the subjective experiences of leaders in public Montessori schools in rural

and remote areas, I interviewed administrators from three such schools. The schools I

focused on include the school where I teach, Ross Montessori School in Carbondale,

Colorado; Redwood Coast Montessori in Arcata, California; and Barron Area Montessori in

Barron, Wisconsin. I contacted school leaders at two other schools, but did not receive a

response.

In order to acquire some background knowledge about each school, I first asked the

school leaders about their students’ demographics. Then, I used a document created by

several Montessori organizations—AMS, Association Montessori Internationale (AMI),

North American Montessori Teachers’ Association, Montessori Education Programs

International, and the Southwestern Montessori Training Center—called Essential

Elements of Successful Montessori Schools in the Public School Sector to create other

questions (AMS, 2015). This document addresses six main topics relating to public

Montessori education:

87


Qualified Montessori teachers

Administration

Recruitment and Parent Education

Curriculum and Environment

Assessment

Professional Development

I asked each school administrator questions centering on each of these topics. Finally, I

asked the school leaders about advantages and challenges they see that result from being in

a remote or rural area.

Ross Montessori School, Carbondale, Colorado: Sonya Hemmen.Sonya Hemmen is Head of School at Ross Montessori School (RMS), a public charter

school in Carbondale, Colorado. Ross Montessori has a charter through a statewide

chartering district – the Charter School Institute – rather than through the local school

district.

Carbondale has a history of Montessori education that goes back to 1981. That year,

Mark and Kathryn Ross founded a private toddler and primary Montessori school, called

Mount Sopris Montessori School. Mount Sopris Montessori currently serves approximately

95 children, aged 18 months to six years (Mount Sopris Montessori, 2015).

88


Figure 7: Ross Montessori School's location (Google, 2015)

In 2000, M. and K. Ross started a Montessori strand within the local public

elementary school. Over the next several years, the Montessori strand within the public

school system grew to include Kindergarten, lower elementary, and upper elementary

classes. During the 2004-2005 school year, the administrators of the public school district

decided to end the Montessori strand at the end of that school year. Parents and teachers in

the Montessori strand worked to get a charter through Colorado’s Charter School Institute

(CSI) and opened RMS in the fall of 2005.

According to NCES locale data, RMS is located in a “remote town.” Carbondale is a

town in the Rocky Mountains, with a population of just over 6,500. Carbondale is

approximately 170 miles from Denver and about 30 miles from the resort town of Aspen.

The nearest Montessori training center is Montessori Education Center of the Rockies

(MECR), an AMS-affiliated, Montessori Accreditation Council for Teacher Education

(MACTE) accredited teacher-training center in Boulder, Colorado. MECR is, according to

Google Maps, 182 miles from RMS (Google, 2015).

89


In my interview with Hemmen, I learned that the school currently serves 233

students, ages five to 14. There are two Kindergarten classes, four lower elementary

classes, three upper elementary classes, and two Middle School classes. RMS currently has

eleven students (4.7% of the student body) who qualify for state-funded Special Education

services, 59 children (25.3%) who qualify for free or reduced lunch, 35 English language

learners (15%), and 57 Latino students (24.5%). These demographics reflect the

surrounding community fairly well, but do not mirror the demographics of the elementary

schools in the local school district (S. Hemmen, personal communication, February 17,

2015).

RMS currently has two Kindergarten classes, rather than a Montessori primary

program (which has 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds together). More than half of the Kindergarteners

who attend RMS previously attended Mount Sopris Montessori preschool. RMS began in

2005 with Kindergarten only, and then had an unsuccessful attempt at offering primary for

a few years. Some teachers, board members, and other community members hope to look

into having a primary program again, when the school moves to a new site with much more

space. There are no specific plans for a primary program at this time.

RMS is funded by two main sources: publicly funded state Per Pupil Operating

Revenue (PPOR) and privately funded Mark Ross Montessori Foundation (MRMF). With the

state funding, RMS receives grants through CSI for students who meet particular criteria,

including students identified as English language learners, students who received Special

Education services, and students who are identified as Gifted and Talented. The private

MRMF money supplements the PPOR and helps pay for classroom assistants, Montessori

materials, and cultural experiences for the students (Hemmen, 2015).

90


The classroom teachers at RMS, in all Kindergarten and elementary classes, hold

Montessori credentials for the level they teach, through MACTE-accredited AMS or AMI

programs. Each Kindergarten and elementary class has a half-time assistant teacher during

the morning work cycle and to help with lunch and recess supervision. Assistants have had

varying degrees of experience with Montessori education – from being fully credentialed to

having interest and on-the-job training. The middle school program is a transitional

program, not a Montessori program. It is intended to prepare Montessori students for

traditional high schools. The middle school teachers are not Montessori-credentialed.

RMS has never had a Montessori-credentialed Head of School. Hemmen is the

school’s second Head of School. She and the previous Head of School both came to RMS

from traditional public school backgrounds, with experience in administration. Hemmen

has completed 40 hours of primary overview at an AMS training center and says she “relies

on and trusts the Montessori teachers as Montessorians” (Hemmen, 2015).

RMS administrators have recruited teachers and staff in various ways. For

Montessori-credentialed teachers, RMS posts advertisements with MECR, as well as on the

AMS and AMI websites, and on charter school websites. RMS advertises all faculty and staff

positions in local newspapers. Some current staff members are parents of current or

former students who wanted to become more involved with RMS (Hemmen, 2015).

Hemmen sees value in continuous Montessori professional development for all staff

members – both those who are Montessori-credentialed and those who are not. She tries to

provide 12 or so hours of Montessori-specific professional development for all staff on-site

each school year. Also, all teachers and assistants attended the inaugural Montessori in the

91


Mountains Retreat in Estes Park, Colorado in the fall of 2011. Hemmen’s goal is to have all

faculty and staff attend this retreat whenever it is offered (Hemmen, 2015).

Hemmen believes that the Colorado Montessori Association is off to a good start and

is working on “the right things,” like required standardized assessments in public schools

and the Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) for primary programs. She said,

“the meet-and-greets seem great, but we are not involved because they are on The Front

Range,” meaning more than 150 miles away. Sonya also mentioned that she would “love to

host a regional or mountain professional day,” at which remote Montessori schools in the

mountains of Colorado would come together to share resources and ideas around a

particular theme (Hemmen, 2015).

Considering advantages of RMS’s remote location, Hemmen says the staff’s time

with children is “sacred,” because district-level meetings do not interrupt the staff’s time at

school with children. Hemmen says that, in her experience, administrators in larger cities

and areas cannot avoid meetings. With modern technology, RMS faculty and staff can

attend meetings remotely, through the use of webinars and the like. For CSI, Sonya needs to

attend two meetings per year in person. She says this is far fewer than the meetings she

would attend if RMS were closer to the Denver area (Hemmen, 2015).

On the other hand, Hemmen also sees some disadvantages of RMS’s remote location.

She mentions that student applicants for the school are limited. In Hemmen’s opinion, the

wider Carbondale community sees RMS as out-of-the-box and progressive. Prospective

parents and the community need a lot of explanation not only about Montessori education,

but also about the 3-day-a-week hot lunch program, transportation options for students,

and other school-specific programs (Hemmen, 2015).

92


Another disadvantage that Hemmen notes is the costs of running a school in the

Aspen, Colorado area. Since its inception, RMS has been working on buying land, in order to

move off the property; the school has leased for ten years. However, the cost of land in the

area has been prohibitive. The cost of living is also higher than other places in Colorado.

The high costs affect health insurance rates and salaries of all school employees (Hemmen,

2015).

Redwood Coast Montessori, Arcata, California: Bryan and Terri Little.Terri and Bryan Little are leaders of Redwood Coast Montessori (RCM) in Arcata,

California. RCM has gone through many changes, and is now at a more permanent building

site on the tiny Samoa Peninsula between Arcata Bay and the Pacific Ocean. The school’s

backdoor opens to sand dunes, which lead directly to the ocean (B. Little and T. Little,

personal communication, February 19, 2015). According to NCES, RCM’s locale is in a

“remote town.”

T. Little’s oldest children, now in their twenties, attended a private Montessori

school for primary, and T. Little was looking for more Montessori education after primary.

Although her oldest children were too old to attend, T. Little founded the school as part of

the local school district in the fall of 2005. At that time, RCM was a standalone room on the

campus of a local elementary school. Beginning in the 2013-2014 school year, RCM

received a charter through Arcata School District. RCM is currently in its second school

year as an independent public charter school through Arcata School District (B. Little & T.

Little, 2015).

As an independent charter school, RCM receives funding directly from the state of

California. B. Little says RCM has “a good relationship with the district” and that RCM pays

93


the district to take care of payroll and other financial interactions. RCM hires their own

resources for special education – including a resource teacher, a speech-language

pathologist, and psychologist. RCM has a nurse from the county health office a couple hours

per school year (B. Little & T. Little, 2015).

Currently, RCM serves 81 students, ages four through 12. RCM has one primary

room, with children aged four to six. RCM’s student population includes 10 students

(12.3%) of various racial minorities, 3 English language learners (3.7%), and 36 students

(44.4%) who qualify for free or reduced lunch. This is representative of the school’s

immediate geographic area, but not representative of the county as a whole (B. Little & T.

Little, 2015).

In California, Transitional Kindergarten is offered for any child whose “fifth birthday

falls between September 2 and December 2” (California Department of Education, 2015).

According to the California Department of Education website, transitional Kindergarten

programs are “part of the K-12 public school system and are the first year of a two-year

Kindergarten program” (CDE, 2015). So, in accordance with California law, Transitional

Kindergarten and Kindergarten students receive free schooling at RCM. Also at RCM, there

are two lower elementary classes and two upper elementary classes. RCM has plans to

open an adolescent (7th and 8th grade) class in upcoming years. RCM’s maximum student

population is 100 children (B. Little & T. Little, 2015).

94


RCM’s lead classroom teachers either hold

Montessori credentials or are actively working to get them. Montessori guides at RCM have

attended various MACTE-accredited training programs. For teacher recruitment, RCM has

advertised available positions in both Montessori advertising venues and in local job

posting sites. RCM’s lead teachers must also hold a California credential. All RCM classes

have an assistant at least halftime, with lower elementary classes having assistant teachers

75% of the time (B. Little & T. Little, 2015).

T. Little and B. Little have been the administrators of RCM during its entire

existence. T. Little has Montessori credentials at the elementary level. She began RCM in

2005. In September 2013, a car hit T. Little and some friends while they were out running.

One friend passed away, while T. Little and the other friend sustained severe injuries. Since

then, she has been unable to perform administrative duties at RCM. At the time of T. Little’s

accident, her husband, B. Little, had been working toward his educational administrative

Figure 11: Redwood Coast Montessori's location (Google, 2015)

Figure 12: Close-up of Redwood Coast Montessori's location, showing the peninsula

95


license, and has since completed it. He also has California teaching credentials for high

school science. B. Little does not have Montessori experience or credentials. He relies on T.

Little to answer Montessori-related questions and says, “80 percent of the time, [he is] not

working on Montessori stuff” as the administrator of RCM. T. Little says that she is available

to B. Little “all the time,” to give a Montessori perspective (B. Little & T. Little, 2015).

The classrooms at RCM are well supplied with Montessori materials, thanks mostly

to a $375,000 public charter school grant from the federal government. The grant included

one planning year and two implementation years, and RCM is now completing the second

implementation year. The primary and lower elementary rooms are particularly well

stocked, and the Littles are purchasing more materials for the upper elementary room and

adolescent community (B. Little & T. Little, 2015).

The Montessori faculty at RCM has kept a long work cycle in the morning

“sacrosanct,” according to T. Little. All students and teachers have uninterrupted work time

in the mornings. For two afternoons each week, each class has a continuation of the

morning work cycle. The other three afternoons each week, the students have some sort of

enrichment – art, music, physical education, or science (B. Little & T. Little, 2015).

Parent education at RCM is “evolving,” according to B. Little. The faculty conducts

more parent education at the Transitional Kindergarten and Kindergarten levels. The

Littles and teachers see a need for “more active parent education.” T. Little says the staff

does a good job “frontloading parents with information before they enroll their children.”

RCM teachers use Montessori Records Express, an online record-keeping tool, and plan to

show parents how to check their child’s progress this school year. RCM holds a back-to-

96


school night near the beginning of each school year, and it is well attended (B. Little & T.

Little, 2015).

As a public charter school, RCM must use California’s state-mandated tests: Smarter

Balanced assessments at the end of each school year (California Department of Education

website, 2015). RCM also conducts other forms of assessment. As mentioned previously,

the teachers use Montessori Records Express to document lessons present, practiced, and

mastered for each student. The teachers also document observations made in the

classroom in Montessori Records Express. Teachers keep and use student work, to see

student growth. Teachers also assess reading with the Developmental Reading Assessment.

Otherwise, teachers observe students and create informal assessment tools based on the

children’s needs (B. Little & T. Little, 2015).

With the growth of the school these past few years, most of the professional

development has been Montessori teacher training. Montessori guides also use

professional days to observe in other Montessori schools. As the Montessori teachers finish

their Montessori certification, the school will need to look into other forms of professional

development (B. Little & T. Little, 2015).

In neighboring towns and in Humboldt County, there are several private primary

Montessori schools. One of the private schools also has an elementary program. RCM is “on

good terms” with some of these private Montessori programs, and does not have much

interaction with others. A few students attend a private Montessori primary school in the

mornings and RCM’s primary program in the afternoon (B. Little & T. Little, 2015).

When discussing the advantages of RCM’s remote setting, B. Little mentions the

“beautiful location and peacefulness” that surrounds the school. The location also allows

97


for and encourages outdoor nature- and science-based lessons. B. Little also says that some

parents view the location and the fact that there is no fence surrounding the playground to

be a disadvantage. The sand between the school and the ocean is public property (B. Little

& T. Little, 2015).

When discussing challenges of their remote location, the Littles note that recruiting

staff is difficult. They also believe that the diversity of students in low because of their

location and the fact that they do not have a bus to bring children to the school on the

peninsula. Many of their students live in the higher socio-economic neighborhood on the

peninsula (B. Little & T. Little, 2015).

Another challenge due to RCM’s remote location is that they are not near any other

public Montessori schools. The closest one, according to T. Little, is a 3-hour drive away on

mostly small windy roads. It is difficult for the students to meet each other or relate with

others in public Montessori schools. Also, this makes it difficult for staff to observe and

connect with others in public Montessori schools (B. Little & T. Little, 2015).

RCM students and staff go on various field trips, including outdoor trips, trips to

small local museums. The neighboring town of Eureka is an old city and has many historical

sites. A Coast Guard station is about one mile from the school and accommodates field trips.

The town of Arcata is also home to Humboldt State University, which has approximately

8,000 undergraduate students. RCM students go to artistic performances and the natural

history museum at Humboldt State. Also, guest speakers from the university visit the

school for special presentations (B. Little & T. Little, 2015).

T. Little has also encouraged upper elementary students to attend the Montessori

Model United Nations conference in Indiana. All upper elementary students study a

98


particular country and prepare to be a delegate for that country. Some of those students

work after school to further hone their knowledge and understanding and to fundraise,

then attend the Montessori Model United Nations conference in the spring. The current

school year is the second year that children from RCM will attend the conference in Indiana

(B. Little & T. Little, 2015).

Barron Area Montessori, Barron, Wisconsin: Nancy Weise.I also spoke with Nancy Weise, part-time administrator for Barron Area Montessori

School (BAMS), a charter school located within Woodland Elementary in Barron, Wisconsin

(N. Weise, personal communication, February 24, 2015). BAMS, according to NCES locale

codes, is located in a “fringe rural” area; the school is in a census-defined rural area near

the town of Barron.

Figure 8: Location of Barron Area Montessori

BAMS was founded in 2007 when parents, who had sent their children to local

private Montessori primary programs, were looking for an extension of their children’s

Montessori education. One parent in particular, a special education teacher with the local

school district, worked to get a charter with the district. Weise, who had years of education

99


background and no Montessori experience, was asked to be on the board of the Montessori

charter school eight years ago. For the first years of the charter, the principal of Woodland

Elementary was also the principal of the Montessori charter. Then, BAMS’s board believed

the Montessori school needed its own principal. The board of the local school district

agreed, and asked Weise to be the part-time principal of the Montessori charter school (N.

Weise, 2015).

BAMS has a student population of seventy, in two primary classes and one lower

elementary class. The school receives money from the state for four-year-olds to attend

half-day and for kindergarteners to attend full-day. The primary classes have 3-year-olds

attend half-day, with no tuition. With a higher number of students in the Montessori

primary class than typical preschool classes, the school receives enough funding from the

state (for the 4-year-olds and kindergarteners) to offer free Montessori primary to three-

year-olds (N. Weise, 2015).

Also, the lower elementary class at BAMS extends to fourth grade. Baron Area

School District transitions children from elementary school to middle school between

fourth and fifth grades. So, BAMS has decided to extend its lower elementary program to

include fourth grade. This way, students transition from BAMS directly to the local middle

school, rather than transitioning to traditional elementary school for fourth grade, then to

middle school the next year (N. Weise, 2015).

Forty percent of BAMS’s students qualify for free or reduced lunch, which is lower

than the general local population. The racial mix within BAMS has varied over the years,

partly because the school district’s teacher for English Language Learners has talked

parents into leaving BAMS to attend the traditional public elementary school. Barron has a

100


Somali community that makes up ten percent of the wider community. Currently, BAMS has

one Somali student, and some other students with Somali heritage have aged out of BAMS

(N. Weise, 2015).

BAMS’s funding comes from the state, through the local school district. As a charter

through the local school district, BAMS receives 60% of the state’s money for teachers,

materials, and other expenditures as decided by BAMS’s board and Weise. The other 40%

of the state’s funding stays with the school district. The district provides space for BAMS

within one of its elementary schools, specials classes, classes for English Language

Learners, and all services related to special education (N. Weise, 2015).

According to Weise, BAMS “started small” and its original Montessori teachers

“emerged from the community.” People interested in becoming Montessori guides applied

for the teaching positions. The board of directors decided to pay for Montessori training

with a grant, and the teachers make a three-year commitment to the school. Currently,

BAMS has three MACTE-accredited, credentialed Montessori lead teachers, one

Montessori-credentialed aide, and two untrained aides (N. Weise, 2015).

Weise mentions that BAMS has “a lot of money” for professional development. The

school sends one teacher a year on a rotating basis to the AMI refresher course and

workshops. Members of the faculty also go to various one-day workshops in the

Minneapolis-Saint Paul area of Minnesota, about 80 miles (1.5 hours) away (N. Weise,

2015).

Weise says that informing the public about Montessori has been one of the most

challenging aspects of being a remote Montessori school. She says, “people have no

perceptions about Montessori – incorrect or correct perceptions.” On a related note, she

101


also mentions that BAMS does not have “as much parent involvement as we’d like.” With

the founding parents’ children aging out of the program, Weise says there has more

recently been a “desert of parent involvement.” Weise did give credit to the formal parent

group for helping organize a cross-country ski race that all the students attended. Many

parents attended as well. The parent group also helps organize guest speakers and

presentations. Attendance at teacher-led parent education events is sparse (N. Weise,

2015).

When asked how BAMS students interact with the local community, Weise says that

the students do not go out as much as they could. The school-community connection is not

as fluid as Weise and the teachers would like. Students interact with the wider community

during “occasional nursing home visits” or other sporadic trips out of the school. Weise also

mentions a cross-country ski trail that is near the school. The students at BAMS use it often

and interact with the community that way (N. Weise, 2015).

Weise, when describing advantages of being in a rural or remote area, says the

school community has not taken advantage of being in a rural area very much, and that the

staff “wishes [they] could take advantage of the rural environment more.” She mentions

woods that are near the school, but also says that to get to the woods, children need to walk

through the artificial environments of athletic fields and playgrounds that directly

surround the school. Weise mentions that in larger cities, students have many

opportunities for cultural experiences. In truly rural areas, open spaces offer various

nature- and science-based opportunities. Weise feels that, being in the small town, BAMS

does not have either of these types of opportunities (N. Weise, 2015).

102


To spend some time in open spaces, students at BAMS take overnight field trips to a

rural campus of another Montessori school (N. Weise, 2015). Lake Country School, a

private Montessori school based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, has a rural campus of 160

acres. According to Lake Country School’s website, “the beautiful site includes a farmstead,

forests, fields, ravines, and ponds. [The school has] developed an extensive trail system,

thriving beehives, maple sugaring, and an apple orchard. In 2004 a homestead was built

which serves as classroom, kitchen, dining hall, living space, and dorm rooms” (Lake

Country School, 2015). Weise says that BAMS students and staff enjoy overnight field trips

to Lake Country School’s rural campus (N. Weise, 2015).

Observations and ReflectionsAccording to the merged NCES and NCMPS data, 120 public Montessori schools are

in rural areas or remote towns. That is 24.8% of all the known public Montessori programs

in the US. The subjective experiences of these Montessori school leaders add depth to this

objective data. Now I will point out some similarities among the school leaders’

experiences.

Parents whose children attended private Montessori primary programs founded or

initiated the founding of each of the schools I researched. These parents wanted to give

their children the opportunity to attend a Montessori elementary program, and worked

within their communities to start a school. Here, a correlation between private and public

Montessori programs is evident.

Interestingly, all three schools have experienced some challenges with regard to

parent education as well. While some parents—perhaps the parents when the school was

founded—know about and are passionate about Montessori education, other parents and

103


community members do not have experience with or knowledge of Montessori education.

As Weise states, “people have no perceptions about Montessori – incorrect or correct

perceptions” (Weise, 2015). Paradoxically, while parent education has been a challenge for

each school I researched, each of the schools is growing in population.

Montessori guides and students in rural and remote areas benefit from the nature

that is outside their doors. In Barron, students cross-country ski on trails just outside the

school. In Arcata, children explore sand dunes and the ocean by walking out the school’s

backdoor. In Carbondale, students cross the street to a protected nature park for various

lessons and experiences. Field trips to local places—ranches, sprawling fields, woods, or

Coast Guard stations—further enhance students’ understanding of their local

environments. Experiences like these may be more difficult for school communities in

urban and suburban areas.

On the other side of the coin from nature-based activities, is a scarcity of cultural

experiences in remote and rural areas. Guides at all three schools I researched work to

provide cultural opportunities to their students. However, finding quality museums,

theaters, and cultural centers in small towns and rural areas can be a challenge.

In regard to the faculty and staff at each school, the administrators all said that

recruitment of Montessori credentialed guides has been a challenge. Each school has found

interested adults in their communities, who have then taken Montessori training courses to

become certified guides. When the schools advertise in regional or national Montessori

publications, they have mixed results.

104


All of this objective data and subjective experience provide a glimpse into public

Montessori education in rural and remote settings. This glimpse may be pertinent in the

larger Montessori community, for we are all united in a common aim.

105


Chapter Seven: Reflections and Possibilities “Although we can discern individual parts in any system, these parts are not isolated, and

the nature of the whole is always different from the mere sum of its parts.”

(Capra, 1996, p. 29)

Reflecting on my TIES experience My entire TIES experience has brought me wonder, curiosity, uncertainty, and hope.

While I had studied cosmogenesis before, it had always been in preparation to teach 6- to

9-year-olds, rather than for my own deeper understanding. My knowledge has definitely

deepened from reading more about the universe story, the history of how scientists have

learned about cosmogenesis, chaos theory, systems thinking, ecological thinking, and Gaia.

The autopoietic dialogues shared among professors, authors, and classmates challenged

some of my views and widened my outlook. Learning more about human development by

reading about chimpanzee development helped me to again see our interrelationship with

everything.

As an undergrad and in my time teaching since then, I have studied education in

various ways, including active study in lower elementary classrooms and in schools. I have

read many of Montessori’s works and discussed them with colleagues. But I have never

looked so deeply into some of her insights, or the work of her son and grandson.

Krishnamurti’s and Gang and Morgan’s thoughts on integrated, radical education have

helped me relate Montessori education to other possibilities of integrative education,

including adult education. I am grateful for NCMPS’s work in chronicling the history of

Montessori education in the public sector, as well as researching and advocating for

current public Montessori programs. Before studying views on rural education during the

106


past year, I had not read much on education in rural areas. The insights I gained help me

see a bigger picture of education and community in rural America.

Learning about leadership in the context of the bigger picture of new science was

also enlightening for me. The idea that we humans can learn from others in the natural

world and apply lessons from ecology to our work in human organizations both challenges

my former views of leadership and also makes complete sense to me! (I have also learned

to accept paradoxes for what they are!) Theories of leadership based on new science,

cooperation, adaptive leadership, and transformational leadership, as well as practical

applications of these ideas, inspire me as I aspire to work more with adults.

Reading about and conducting neurophenomenological research challenged my

understanding of scientific research. Like many in our Western society, I had thought that

“true science” could only be objective – that subjectivity could be interesting, but did not

add to scientific understanding. The observation and creativity exercises we practiced

throughout the TIES programs converged in our study of neurophenomenology.

In my mind, all of these topics—cosmogenesis, systems, dialogue, Montessori

education, rural education, leadership, cooperation, research, etc.—have built on the

others. While this web of integration is very personal for me with my background and

interests, I believe it may also be important to the wider community. What can

Montessorians in America learn from this synthesis of thought? How can this web of

information and experience contribute to the community?

107


Possibilities for the futurePerhaps the wider Montessori community and the public Montessori school

community may gain insight by learning, thinking, and having dialogue about Montessori

education in rural and remote areas.

On a local scale, perhaps an urban or suburban school could link up with a remote or

rural school. This relationship could involve pen-pal communication, sharing of place-

based (or other) student presentations via video conferencing, overnight field trips to each

other’s schools, or shared professional development for the faculties and staffs. I am sure

there are other possibilities as well, and once relationships between schools are formed,

the autopoietic process of the participants could shape the schools’ relationship.

On a regional or statewide scale, statewide Montessori associations or training

centers may work with schools that are further away in a different way than they do with

schools that are closer. Perhaps when a Montessori association or training center offers

professional development workshops, they could offer reduced fees for people who live or

work a certain distance away, understanding that those people will spend time and money

to travel to the event. Another option would be for the associations or training centers to

make events available online, as AMS has done with its webinar series. Perhaps the events

could be offered online to all members or participants, or perhaps they would only be

available online for people who live a particular distance from the event. With the

technology available today, many options are available for remote access to meetings,

dialogues, and events.

Leaders of Montessori schools in rural and remote settings could reach out to

participate in regional or statewide Montessori associations and training centers as well.

108


School leaders could offer specific workshops for others in rural and remote areas. Rural or

remote leaders could also facilitate a networking session or panel discussion regarding the

challenges and advantages of being in a remote area. Hemmen’s thoughts of hosting a

small-scale professional day for other remote schools are intriguing. Additionally,

professionals at rural or remote schools could apply for part-time jobs or volunteer to be

on committees at statewide associations or training centers. This would, of course, take

some additional logistical planning to attend meetings remotely or to travel.

I am sure there are other ways that voices of rural and remote Montessori leaders

may be heard. There are also opportunities for more research related to these topics. I

interviewed leaders from three schools; input from other Montessori school leaders in

rural and remote areas would add more to the dialogue and knowledge base. Additionally,

this thesis focused particularly on Montessori programs in the public sector; of course,

private Montessori schools could also be studied. An intriguing question to ask about rural

and remote Montessori schools would be, “How do the Montessori schools impact the small

local communities?” Not only are rural and remote schools part of the wider Montessori

community, but they may also be integral parts of their local communities.

109


References

Alon, U. (2013, June). [Lecture]. Why truly innovative science demands a leap into the unknown. Speech presented for TEDGlobal. Retrieved from www.ted.com

American Montessori Society. (2015). Essential elements of successful Montessori schools in the public school sector. Retrieved from American Montessori Society website: http://amshq.org/School-Resources/Public

Berry, T. (1999). The great work: Our way into the future. New York, NY: Bell Tower.

Bockelman, P., Reinerman-Jones, L., & Gallagher, S. (2013, October 10). Methodological lessons in neurophenomenology: Review of a baseline study and recommendations for research approaches. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3794193/

Bohm, D. (1996). On dialogue. New York, NY:Routledge.

Briggs, J. & Peat, F. D. (1999). Seven life lessons of chaos. New York, NY: HarperCollins e-books.

Brooke, R. (2012). Voices of young citizens: Rural citizenship, schools, and public policy. In Donehower, K., Hogg, C., & Schell, E.E. (Ed.). (2012). Reclaiming the rural: Essays on literacy, rhetoric, and pedagogy. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.

Butler, T. & Edmondson, J. (2012). Sustaining a rural Pennsylvania community: Negotiating rural literacies and sustainability. In Donehower, K., Hogg, C., & Schell, E.E. (Ed.). (2012). Reclaiming the rural: Essays on literacy, rhetoric, and pedagogy. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.

California Department of Education. (2015). Smarter Balanced Assessment System. Retrieved from California Department of Education website: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sa/

California Department of Education. (2015). Transitional Kindergarten FAQs. Retrieved from California Department of Education website: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/gs/em/kinderfaq.asp

Capra, F. (1996). The web of life: A new scientific understanding of living systems. New York, NY: Anchor Books.

Donehower, K., Hogg, C., & Schell, E.E. (Ed.). (2012). Reclaiming the rural: Essays on literacy, rhetoric, and pedagogy. Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.

110


Fouts, R. (1997). Next of kin: What chimpanzees have taught me about who we are. New York, NY: William Morrow and Company, Inc.

Gang, P. (1989). Rethinking education. Christchurch 8007, New Zealand: Dagaz Press.

Gang, P. (2011, July). The future of humanity: Qualities for survival. [Lecture]. Speech presented in Florianopolis, Brazil. [Transcript]. Retrieved from http://ties.bigmindcatalyst.com/cgi/bmcDL.pl/pgang/Future_of_Humanity-2.pdf

Google. (2015). [Maps]. Retrieved from: https://www.google.com/maps

Harmon, H. L. & Schafft, K. (2009). Rural school leadership for collaborative community development. The Rural Educator, 30(3), 4-9. Retrieved from http://www.ruraleducator.net/

Heider, J. (1985). The Tao of leadership: Lao Tzu’s Tao Te Ching adapted for a new age. Atlanta, Georgia: Humanics New Age.

Johnson, J., Showalter, D., Klein, R., & Lester, C. (2014). Why rural matters 2013-14. Washington, DC: The Rural School and Community Trust. Retrieved from http://www.ruraledu.org/user_uploads/file/2013-14-Why-Rural-Matters.pdf

Kramer, R. (1988). Maria Montessori: A biography. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing. (Original work published 1976)

Krishnamurti, Jiddu. (1953). Education and the significance of life. Hampshire, UK: Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Limited.

Kushner, L. (2003). Honey from a rock. New York, NY: Harper & Row. [Kindle version]. Retrieved from amazon.com (Original work published 1977)

Lake Country School. (2015). Land School. Retrieved from Lake Country School website: http://www.lakecountryschool.org/

Lillard, A. (2005). Montessori: The science behind the genius. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Mariotti, H. (1999, May 22). Autopoiesis, culture, and society. Retrieved from Oikos website: http://www.oikos.org/mariotti.htm

McKenzie, G. (2006, January 5). Working together: Collaborative school leadership fosters a climate of success. Retrieved from www.redorbit.com

Montessori, Maria. (1971). The Four Planes of Development. Association Montessori Internationale. (Original lecture presented 1938)

111


Montessori, Maria. (1989). The Clio Montessori series: Vol. 3. The formation of man. Oxford, England: Clio Press. (Original work published 1955)

Montessori, Maria. (1989). The Clio Montessori series: Vol. 5. Education for a new world. Oxford, England: Clio Press. (Original work published 1946)

Montessori, Maria. (1989). The Clio Montessori series: Vol. 6. To educate the human potential. Oxford, England: Clio Press. (Original work published 1948)

Montessori, Maria. (1992). The Clio Montessori series: Vol. 10. Education and Peace. Oxford, England: Clio Press. (Original work published 1949)

Montessori, Maria. (1995). The absorbent mind. New York: Henry Holt and Company. (Original work published 1949)

Montessori, Mario Jr. (1992). The Clio Montessori series: Vol. 11. Education for human development: Understanding Montessori. Oxford, England: Clio Press. (Original work published 1976)

Montessori, Mario, Sr. (n.d.). Cosmic Education. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Association Montessori Internationale. (Copyright 1976)

Montessori, Mario, Sr. (n.d.). The human tendencies and Montessori education. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Association Montessori Internationale. (Original lecture given 1956)

Mount Sopris Montessori. (2015). Our School. Retrieved from Mount Sopris Montessori website: http://www.mtsoprismontessori.org/

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2015). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/

National Center for Montessori in the Public Sector (2015). Retrieved from http://www.public-montessori.org/

Riga, G. Analysis of test data for public Montessori programs in a rural and an urban setting. Retrieved from https://amshq.org/ /media/

426926DA17C745AFB7D0157C595CF719.ashx

Rogin, N. (Director). (2006). The awakening universe [DVD]. [Written by N. Rogin, & D. Dellinger]. United States: Neal Rogin.

Rudrauf, D., Lutz, A., Cosmelli, D., Lachaux, J., Le Van Quyen, M. (2003). From autopoiesis to neurophenomenology: Francisco Varela’s exploration of the biophysics of being. Retrieved from http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=S0716-97602003000100005&script=sci_arttext

112


Scharmer, C. (2000, January 12). The three gestures of becoming aware: Conversation with Francisco Varela. Interview conducted in Paris, France. [Transcript]. Retrieved from http://www.iwp.jku.at/born/mpwfst/02/www.dialogonleadership.org/varelax2000.html

Shamah, D. & MacTavish, K. A. (2009). Rural research brief: Making room for place-based knowledge in rural classrooms. The Rural Educator, 30(2), 1-4. Retrieved from http://www.ruraleducator.net/

Swimme, B. & Berry, T. (1992). The universe story: From the primordial flaring forth to the Ecozoic Era—A celebration of the unfolding of the cosmos. San Francisco: Harper Collins.

Swimme, B. T. & Tucker, M. E. (2011). Journey of the universe. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Uhl, C. (2013). Developing ecological consciousness: The end of separation (2nd ed.) [Kindle version]. Retrieved from amazon.com.

Vedantam, S. (Writer). (2013, November 11). Lessons in leadership: It’s not about you. (It’s about them) [Audio podcast]. [With Heifetz, R.] In Morning Edition. Retrieved from the National Public Radio website: www.npr.org

Wheatley, M. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

113

leadership for public montessori education in rural and remote settings

Documents