what i am saying is more like: if you didn't learn math in school you didn't have a good teacher. because no good teacher would fail at teaching you math. that's the very definition of what a good teacher is, and it is the definition of what good montessori is. the no true scotsman fallacy does not apply here.
if the expected outcome is not achieved, they were not doing it right.
In kindergarten (casa), there's a lot of structure with individualised work and a child is unlikely to have gaps in a specific subject. On the other hand, I think that in elementary with the stronger focus on group projects, it's easier for certain subject to fall by the wayside if a student doesn't particularly care for them.
> the no true scotsman fallacy does not apply here.
I don't buy this at all.
but the situation here is more like: no true scotsman doesn't have scottisch ancestors or at least live in scotland.
i don't have scottish ancestors, and i have never even been there, so i can't ever be a true scotsman, as much as i'd like to be one.
it doesn't have to be a 100% success rate but being pretty far behind in math is a serious failure that makes me question the qualification of the teacher.
it can't be a failure of the montessori method because the very design and goal of the method is to not let that happen. or at least the chance is very small. and then it is still a failure of the teacher and not the method.
and since anyone can claim to do montessori without any certification, my bet is on that being the case.
it would be like a car without wheels. no true car is missing wheels. it could not fulfill its purpose.
