Sablić, Marija, Mirosavljević, Ana, Bogatić, Katarina. (2025). Multigrade education and the Montessori model: A pathway towards inclusion and equity. International Journal of Educational Research. 131. 102600. 10.1016/j.ijer.2025.102600. 

Multigrade Education and Montessori – An Inclusive Framework Worth Exploring?

A study published in the International Journal of Educational Research in 2025 proposed a new theoretical framework for inclusive education that sits at the intersection of multigrade teaching, Montessori pedagogy, and culturally responsive practice. It is a paper worth engaging with seriously, not least because some of its central assumptions invite scrutiny that the Montessori community is particularly well-placed to offer.

What the paper sets out to do

The authors begin from a genuine and important observation that multigrade classrooms, where children of mixed ages, grades and abilities share a single teacher, are the daily reality for millions of children. This is particularly true in rural and under-resourced communities where single-grade schooling is economically or demographically unviable. However, these classrooms often lack the pedagogical frameworks, teacher preparation, and institutional support they need to function well.

The paper's argument is that Montessori pedagogy offers a meaningful resource for these settings, and that the relationship between the two traditions deserves more scholarly attention than it has received to date. 

With this in mind, the authors develop what they call the Culturally Responsive Multigrade Montessori (CRMM) Framework. This theoretical model is intended to place cultural responsiveness at the intersection of Montessori principles and more traditional forms of multigrade practice. The framework aligns with UNESCO's Education 2030 goals and draws on established scholarship in culturally responsive pedagogy, constructivism, and disability studies.

The review of evidence the paper assembles is useful. Montessori students demonstrate stronger intrinsic motivation, more sophisticated self-regulation, and sustained academic outcomes. Well-supported multigrade classrooms show gains in executive function, peer learning, and social-emotional development. The paper's case that these traditions share deeper theoretical roots in child-centred learning, peer interaction, and individualised progression is coherent and draws on a broad literature.

Where the framing raises questions

The paper's framework, however, rests on two assumptions that deserve closer examination. The first concerns cultural responsiveness. The CRMM Framework is premised partly on the idea that Montessori, as traditionally implemented, does not adequately address students' cultural identities and may inadvertently reinforce exclusionary practices. 

This is presented as a structural gap requiring a new framework to resolve. Yet Montessori philosophy does not, in principle, preclude cultural responsiveness. Indeed, the intention of the prepared environment is that it is designed to respond to the child, and every child arrives with a cultural identity. The question is whether individual schools and practitioners actualise that responsiveness in practice. These are meaningfully questions to ask. The structural gap implies that Montessori has a philosophical limitation. However, the gap is not necessarily in philosophy – but it may well appear in implementation and professional development. A framework addressing implementation would look quite different from one addressing philosophy. The distinction therefore matters for how policy and practice respond.

The second assumption is embedded in the framework's name itself. The paper treats "multigrade education" and "Montessori education" as two distinct traditions being brought together. It constructs a comparison table listing mixed-age grouping as a feature of each. Yet mixed-age grouping is not just a feature of a Montessori class - it is essential to the approach. Three-year age spans in Montessori classrooms are not a logistical arrangement. Rather they are a deliberate developmental structure grounded in observations of how children learn from and with one another. 

This means the question the paper is really grappling with is more specific than its framing suggests: not how to integrate two separate traditions, but whether and how Montessori principles can be meaningfully applied in contexts that share Montessori's structural form of mixed-age grouping but lack its full philosophical and material infrastructure. That is a genuinely important question, although it is a different question from the one the paper asks. 

What further opportunities are there for research?

The paper is explicit that the CRMM Framework is a foundation for future empirical work rather than a validated model. There are no reports of classroom trials, no outcome data, no tested implementation. However, it opens several research directions worth pursuing.

• What happens to inclusion outcomes when Montessori principles are applied in under-resourced multigrade settings without full Montessori infrastructure? 
• Which elements of the philosophy are most portable, and which depend on conditions such as specialist materials, trained educators, a prepared environment, much of which many settings cannot provide?
• How does cultural identity interact with Montessori's developmental sequences in practice? The paper calls for intersectional research on gender, class, disability and ethnicity in Montessori settings. This is a legitimate gap in the literature and worth filling.
• If the core challenge is application rather than philosophy, what professional development models support greater cultural responsiveness in existing Montessori practice? 

What it raises for policymakers

For those designing or resourcing educational systems, the paper's most valuable contribution may be its reframing of the multigrade classroom. These settings tend to be seen through the lens of what they lack, rather than what they make possible. Montessori principles such as child-led progression, peer learning and the educator as guide are structurally compatible with multigrade teaching. This idea could usefully inform how governments and systems invest in teacher preparation for rural and under-resourced schools.

In summary

This paper makes a useful contribution in drawing two under-connected literatures into conversation, and in insisting that cultural context cannot be treated as peripheral to inclusive practice. The paper also provokes an important question:

• What if Montessori's philosophy can travel into contexts that share its structure but not its resources? 
• If so – how can we make that happen? 

The answers to these questions may just be of profound importance not just to education but to humanity.

Lousie Livingston, AMI Global Research Group