by Lee Havis
In 1907, Dr. Maria Montessori discovered the child’s true nature by observing young children in their free activity with self-teaching materials. In her continuing research, she confirmed that this true nature brought about such outward qualities as spontaneous self-discipline, love of order and perfect harmony with others which she referred to as “normalized”. Discovering this fundamental truth logically provoked Dr. Montessori to study how this results might be practiced in a consistent type of scientific observation which eventually came to be known as the “Montessori Method”
Soon after 1907, however, Dr. Montessori realized that her sense of scientific teaching was only general, so that instruction in her “Method” left practitioners largely on their own, to either follow some prominent personality or their own culture.  Â
Experience and Understanding
Over time, the results and experience of true normal being were lost, abandoned, or entirely rejected as an ideal only or impossible fantasy.  This confusion led Dr. Montessori to describe her “method” in broad, general concepts, focusing instead on the unique Seguin materials, which became a prominent part of her various courses. Outside of Montessori’s direct control, deviations from her basic type of scientific teaching was predictable, especially in light of the great obstacles of transportation and communication during her life. In addition, the disruption of two World Wars was another noteworthy obstacle to her efforts for this visionary “new education”.
In the 1920’s, Dr. Montessori established an official organization, known as Association Montessori Internationale (AMI), to represent her work beyond her own personal control. However, the Method itself was vague and undefined, and therefore presented a considerable obstacle to its effective practice outside of Dr. Montessori’s direct, personal control.
Before Dr. Montessori died in 1952, E. M. Standing, one of her most devoted pupils and colleagues, wrote an impressively detailed biography, “Maria Montessori: Her Life and Work” (1986 edition, introduction by Lee Havis). In this book, Standing attempted to relate the Montessori Method to specific objective principles. After this, however, no one seriously followed up on Standing’s line of research until I started my own study into the subject in 1969.  My discovery of an “individual child framework” for scientific teaching in 1979 then opened up a whole new, practical way to bring about Dr. Montessori’s original vision of the child’s true nature in 1907.
Objective Research and Science
Predictably, my discovery was met with large-scale opposition from conventional education. However, there was much opposition within the Montessori community as well. So, even until the present time, other forms of scientific teaching, usually styled as “Montessori” teaching have prevailed and become entrenched and popular in conventional culture throughout the world.
True Natural Type
IMS represents a “true natural” type of scientific teaching, because it follows laws of nature. The “individual child framework” allows scientific teaching to function with a clear, specific manner that keeps the teacher on path towards the emergence of the child’s true nature. Despite the precise clarity of this framework, there are yet many obstacles to its practice, such as viewing the “hub” child in this framework as an “unknown entity”. Another obstacle is controlling the reactive projections of the “adult personality”.
In 2003, I consolidated a elegant “technology” of practical tools for this type of scientific teaching. And IMS offers a number of means for learning this technology, such as through the “webinar” format of remote learning, which is becoming popular in this modern computer age.
Personality Types
Conventional scientific teaching, generally referred to as “Montessori” teaching follows the guidance and authority of some prominent personality. It may also be the ideas and philosophy from one’s own past. However, there are forms of teacher education that issue a brand of certification in this type, often closely connected with the personality of Dr. Montessori herself. In this type of scientific teaching, the “child” is a universal being, defined by the responsible personality.
Culture Types
The “culture” type of scientific teaching deviates from the personality of Dr. Montessori (or some other prominent personal authority). In this type, the idea is that the child in one culture is different from a child in another. So, there is not just one “child” in basic nature. The conflict between the “personality” and “culture” type of scientific teaching arose early in the development of the Montessori Method. For example, Anne George, the first trained “Montessori” teacher in 1911 wrote and spoke about an “American” child as different from the child in Italy that Dr. Montessori had in her first Children’s House.
After Dr. Montessori’s death in 1952, this conflict has remained problematic in the Montessori community, even though both types have some common ground in the field. In any case, both of these types of scientific teaching are in fundamental conflict with the “true natural” type of scientific teaching, which follows LAWS OF NATURE instead of either personality or culture.
Montessori Teaching
Since proponents of both personality and culture types refer to their approach as “Montessori” teaching, there seems to be a good basis to refer to “true natural” scientific teaching, in a shortened form, as just “scientific teaching”. And, this is the developing practice that IMS is presently adopted to clarify its distinction from other relates forms in the field.