What we know as a traditional school in the US follows the Industrial Model of Education, also called the Factory Model. 

In the late 18th century, the US moved from an agricultural economy to an industrialized one. As a society, we needed to industrialize education. Factories needed an interchangeable workforce with the same basic reading, writing, and math skills to follow instructions and do repetitive tasks. We needed interchangeable, obedient workers to keep our industrialized society humming along. 

Industrialization was the latest and greatest. It was creating wealth and modernizing the country. Mass production and efficiency were inspiring everything at the time. But you don't have to work with children to know all children are different. If you have more than one child, you know all kids are different. Chances are you adjust your parenting and communication style for your different children. You do not think of them as interchangeable widgets. 

To send a person somewhere where they are treated like a widget, no different from the other widgets, how does that make sense in today's world? At the time the Industrial Model, while not the most exciting education model for anyone who loves learning, did fill a need in society. However, our world has changed. Fewer and fewer jobs are in factories or operate in a factory-style fashion.

Today, schools are changing to move away from a factory model. They must do so to be relevant in a post-industrial economy. Think about that: we are living in a post-industrial economy. So then why continue an industrial education model? Most schools don't want to retain a factory model. But it's difficult to significantly shift from the model after being entrenched in the large bureaucracy and hierarchical structure that has existed and defined the Industrial Model for over 200 years.

While we often call the factory model "traditional education," remember it has never been used exclusively worldwide. Nor was it the original model for education. 

One example of a different model, there are many, is the Montessori Method. In the late 19th century, a woman named Maria Montessori started to develop a method of education. She was a scientist who created her method mainly through observation and careful use of the scientific method. She was inspired by the idea that every person has an inner teacher and that their inner teacher can be cultivated. Her method leans on inquiry-based learning. After living through two world wars, she also had a dream that education could be a way to cultivate peace in the world. 

Her inspiration was not to create a workforce to feed industry, it was the idea of the child as a genius and to make the world more welcoming for all people. 

Aspire Savannah does not follow the Industrial Model of Education. We're new enough and small enough not to be saddled with a preexisting bureaucratic authority to slow innovation. We have the luxury of picking our own inspirations. We follow an inquiry-based model, not an industrial model. We are inspired by the Montessori Method, Joseph Renzulli's Three Ring Concept of Giftedness, The Autonomous Learner Model of Gifted Education and other innovators in the realm of inquiry-based learning. We are inspired by the idea of our learners finding their genius through personalized inquiry to become their best selves, for their own inner joy and ultimatly to share with the world. After all, someday they will be the stewards of our world.

Inspiration matters, it shapes everything that happens downline. What has inspired the learning model you most connect with? Is it an "alternative" to the Industrial Model?

This swirly mess is basically what math started to look like in my brain.

At 41 years old, I watched a Montessori instructor in Chicago demonstrate dynamic addition with the Golden Beads. In a Montessori classroom this work is introduced at the primary (pre-K and kindergarten) level.

My heart jumped a little as he worked through adding the two addends and arriving at a sum. So that's what carrying the one meant! Really meant. Of course, it's a base ten number system! I see it. I was giddy as math became much more dynamic for me. I could see why dynamic addition problems were... dynamic. And in true Montessori fashion, that concrete knowledge led to a new conceptual understanding of base ten.

As a small child, I carried the one faithfully on my papers, repeating exactly what my teacher put on the board to come to the correct calculation. I was good at following directions. For me, mimicking the teacher's steps and carrying the one was easy enough.

I now realize, I wasn't taught math. I was taught a series of directions to follow to arrive at a correct calculation. As long as I could memorize and apply that, it looked like I was learning math. Memorizing math facts is useful and necessary, but it doesn't necessarily mean you will be good at higher math.

This is why my math skills deceptively seemed to wane in some areas of math as I got older. I say deceptively because I had never really been "good" at math. How could I be good? I had never been taught math. I was taught to memorize and execute a set of directions.

I continued to consistently receive pretty good grades in math and was on a higher math track (we tracked in the 80s), so why would anyone intervene? I was leaning on my ability to memorize and follow instructions. I was not picking up mathematical thinking. In math classes, this was enough for the tests and plenty for the college entrance exams. But it was definitely not enough to excite me to explore a math or science field beyond high school. Plus, if I had, I'm sure I would have done horribly without a proper foundation.

I was happy to leave more complicated math behind. I remember many times when I had no idea what was going on. Any time we deviated from the memorized steps, it was a language I didn't speak. Lipstick (good planning and processing skills) on a pig (my actual critical thinking math skills).

Were my planning and processing skills at a young age such a known/comfortable strength that I leaned into them to never turn back, no matter the class, curriculum, or instructor? Or could a different kind of math curriculum and instruction have opened me to the language of math, not just the rote processes? Who knows? Maybe my brain was not ready until the ripe old age of 41. Maybe the rote processes were so ingrained in me that I was blind, put to sleep. But what a joy it was to discover the beauty in math, even if it was late. Math is one of the things I most enjoy in my work today.

I hope the changes from Common Core and the ways math is now taught will give children a better math experience than my rote calculation experience in the 80s. Instruction has changed a lot in traditional school settings. Many manipulatives are available these days that work similarly to the Golden Beads, and there are curriculums that focus on problem-solving instead of rote repetition. It certainly requires a willingness to engage your mind and stick with challenging problems, but taking on a math curriculum that fosters critical thinking will prepare you for more than just a test. It's a great time to be a math learner!