Originally published in TEACH Magazine, May/June 2025 Issue
By Jillian Simons
So many schools, so many philosophies. I’ve been an educator for over twenty years, and have taught across public, private, and charter schools. My teaching journey has led me through a maze of varying philosophies on instruction and pedagogy, and my current path has landed me in the role of public school reading teacher.
Early into my career, however, I was a fourth- through sixth-grade classroom teacher at an independent Montessori school. I continue to value much of what I learned through my Montessori training, as this century-old philosophy is still applicable today: focus on the emotional needs of the child, meet the children where they are in their development, and differentiate instruction based on each child’s needs.
Opposing Philosophies
Although I have been out of the Montessori classroom for nearly ten years, I still consider myself a Montessorian. The Montessori method greatly influenced my understanding of children and learning. It taught me to see each child as an individual with unique talents, challenges, and ways of exploring the world. Based on my experience, I whole-heartedly believe that fostering a child’s intrinsic drive to learn forms the foundation of a successful classroom.
I do consider myself an idealistic Montessorian, but I’m also an informed realist who follows current educational trends—and any teacher not hiding under their desk these last few years is aware that reading instruction has been trending toward the Science of Reading. This practice, informed by decades of research into how children learn to read, has been gaining popularity in the literacy community.
At first glance, the Montessori method and the Science of Reading appear to be opposing philosophies. The Montessori method is applicable to all disciplines, and places the focus on the whole child. The emphasis is not just on developing academic skills, but emotional, social, and physical skills as well. The Science of Reading, on the other hand, is based on systematic and explicit phonics teaching, and refers only to literacy instruction.
Despite the apparent differences between the two approaches, I have grappled with the question of whether I would be able to combine my idealistic Montessorian beliefs with the systematic approach of the Science of Reading.
Subscribe to Keep Reading
Subscribe now for just $16.99/year and get full access!
Montessori Method
The Montessori method was founded in the early 20th century by Maria Montessori, an Italian physician and educator. She believed that we should foster the development of each child through self-directed activity and discovery.
Montessori teachers prepare their classrooms to be both engaging and orderly. My upper elementary students did not sit at desks, and neither did I. Most of the time we were sitting on the carpet or working at tables. Our lessons followed the children’s development and natural curiosity. It was common to have six or seven different math groups based on each child’s developmental need.
If something sparked our curiosity, we would often drop everything and explore. A perfect example of this spontaneity occurred one spring day. I was in the middle of teaching a science lesson on clouds when I happened to look out the window and could barely see outside due to all the fog. Knowing that fog is just clouds on the ground, my students and I grabbed whatever clear containers we could find and hurried outside to capture it in a bottle.
Life is full of spontaneous, memorable moments, and Montessori teachers know that children learn best through these hands-on, sensory experiences that are relevant to their lives.
The Science of Reading
The Science of Reading, on the other hand, is a modern, research-based approach to the teaching of literacy. The focus is phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. It lays a very strong foundation in systematically teaching students the structures and rules of language, thus enabling them to become good readers.
In other words, literacy lessons follow a specific scope and sequence that promotes the idea that children must be explicitly taught, as they will not discover the concepts of reading on their own. For example, using a literacy program grounded in the Science of Reading, I must teach the sounds of the consonants before I can teach how to add the suffix “-s” to a word.
Don’t get me wrong, this scope and sequence of learning is backed by years of research that proves such a strategy is the best way for students to learn to read. I wholeheartedly agree. As I tried to implement this approach to learning, however, I began to question my deep-seated roots that children learn best through implicit, self-directed learning and discovery.
Unexpected Similarities
I tried applying both methodologies in my classroom, and at first they truly seemed to be two opposing, incompatible approaches. But as I dug deeper and deeper into a rabbit hole of pedagogy, I found that both philosophies were in fact surprisingly similar.
The Montessori method and the Science of Reading both focus on individualized learning based on each child’s development. The Montessori method promotes learning in a practical-life context by allowing children to work with materials at their own pace. Similarly, the Science of Reading lays strong foundations for reading through the use of multi-sensory approaches such as phonics games and sound-blending activities.
I also found that the role of the teacher is actually very similar in both approaches. Throughout my Montessori training, I was taught that the teacher should play the role of guide and scientist, observing and reacting to each child’s developmental needs. Montessori teachers know when to step in during a lesson and when to step aside and allow independent work to unfold.
Teachers who put the Science of Reading into practice must also meet students at their own levels while still maintaining the pace of the scope and sequence of their literacy instruction. They maintain this individualized education by monitoring the progress of each student, adjusting their teaching methods accordingly, and giving targeted support to recognize gaps in learning. Even though the Science of Reading is systematic, it also stresses differentiation when individualization is required.
A Balanced Approach
So how have I embraced both methodologies when they are so different in their histories and approaches? Through self-reflection and a desire to meet both the developmental and academic needs of my students, I’ve adopted a balanced approach that blends the structure of the Science of Reading with the Montessori principles of following the child.
I recognize that the underlying message behind both methods is to empower children to be lifelong learners. I’ve held fast to my Montessorian roots, yet have grown to accept and appreciate the Science of Reading. By implementing the strengths of both approaches, I have been able to meet my students where they are and create an engaging learning environment that honors each child’s potential.
I provide nurturing support, as Maria Montessori intended, while equipping them with the vital literacy skills in the Science of Reading. Through blending and embracing both methodologies, I am preparing my students for academic excellence, as well as fostering independence, curiosity, and, above all else, a deep love of learning.
Jillian Simons is a dedicated teacher with over 20 years of experience working with K–7 students as a classroom teacher and reading specialist. She has taught in private, charter, and public schools, and is deeply committed to helping emergent readers develop a lifelong appreciation for reading.
