My former mentor, Michael Dorer, used to say something that has stuck with me throughout my teaching career:
“If you have materials in the closet for more than three years, fix it or ditch it.”
An elementary Montessori classroom works in three-year cycles. If you've gone through an entire cycle without pulling a particular material off the shelf, there's probably a reason. And rather than letting it sit there collecting dust for another three years, you should figure out why.
Sometimes, the material has simply aged out. A good example is the Fundamental Human Needs charts. The original versions contained relatively little information compared to some of the modern ones available today. They needed updating, and the newer versions are so much better. Our understanding of the world changes, and our materials should reflect that.
Devin Veselenak has presented on this topic numerous times, particularly about how Cosmic Education needs to keep up with the times. If you ever have the opportunity to see him present live, do yourself a favor and go. He has some excellent insights into how we can continue developing Montessori education without treating the materials as though they were frozen in time. Small aside: Devin is presenting Teaching the Human Story: Moving Beyond the Great Lessons in Montessori Elementary History at the AIMS conference coming up soon at Near North Montessori. If you are going, I highly recommend this session!
Sometimes the problem isn't the material. Sometimes the problem is the teacher. Maybe there's a subject you just don't enjoy teaching. Maybe you don't understand it as well as you should, so you keep putting it off. Maybe you find it boring, and as a result, you assume the students will find it boring too. Well, now we're getting into the preparation of the teacher. If you don't understand the subject well enough, study up. If you think it's boring, figure out how to make it interesting. If you don't enjoy teaching it, ask yourself why. Avoiding a subject because you don't particularly like it isn't a very good reason to deprive students of the opportunity to learn about it.
I remember when I first started teaching, we had a reading comprehension workbook (I know, the dreaded workbook!) filled with excerpts from different types of literature. The variety of reading selections was actually pretty good. The follow-up assignments, however, were garbage. Instead of throwing the whole thing out, I approached it differently. I started creating follow-up activities I would have wanted to do as a student. I used the themes and ideas from the excerpts to inspire creative assignments that went well beyond answering a few comprehension questions.
Over several years, I built up a collection of activities that the students genuinely loved. The interesting thing is that in a parallel universe, or perhaps just another classroom, that exact same workbook could have been a completely dull experience. The difference wasn't necessarily the reading material. It was what we decided to do with it. That experience taught me something important. It's perfectly fine to get rid of materials you aren't using. Just make sure you understand why you aren't using them first. And that brings me to what I've been doing recently with Montessori Physical Education.
Applying the Three-Year Rule to PE
I've been intentionally looking through my collection of PE lessons and identifying games that I haven't played with a particular age group in three years. With more than 200 lessons in the collection, some inevitably go unused. But rather than assuming those lessons aren't worth keeping, I'm trying to figure out why they haven't made it into my rotation. I've been asking myself several questions.
Is the game just not fun enough?
This is probably the most interesting question because it requires me to question my own memory. Did the students actually dislike the game, or do I just remember it being less successful than some of my “greatest hits”? From my adult perspective, a game might not have seemed particularly engaging, but that doesn't necessarily mean the students weren't enjoying themselves. It's entirely possible that I've been avoiding a perfectly good game because my memory of how it went isn't particularly accurate. That's a pretty good reason to give it another chance before deciding it needs an overhaul.
There's also something else to consider. I'm not the same teacher I was three years ago. I've gained more experience, improved how I explain rules, and become better at anticipating and answering student questions. A game that felt complicated or awkward the first time I taught it might run much more smoothly today simply because I've become better at teaching it. Sometimes the game doesn't need to improve; the teacher does. Hopefully, after three years, the teacher already has.
Of course, sometimes a game really isn't as fun as it could be. If that's the case, I need to figure out how to improve it. A small change to the rules, scoring system, or how students interact can completely transform the experience. But I need to play it again before I can confidently make that determination.
Is the game too complicated?
I've certainly created games that made perfect sense in my head but were far too complicated once I tried explaining them to a group of students. If the rules are getting in the way of the actual playing, something needs to change. My job is to simplify the game while preserving the connection to the academic topic it's supposed to reinforce. After all, the integration is what makes these games particularly valuable. If I simplify a game so much that the scientific, historical, or cultural connection disappears, I haven't really solved the problem.
Do I still have the right materials?
Sometimes the reason I haven't played a game is embarrassingly simple. A piece of equipment broke, something went missing, or the materials I originally used are no longer available. If I think the lesson is worth keeping, then I need to replace or remake those materials. Otherwise, I'm letting a logistical problem determine what students get to experience.
Has the classroom moved away from the topic?
This one is a little different because my PE lessons integrate with what students are studying in their classrooms. Sometimes I haven't played a particular game because the classes haven't explored that topic in several years. If that's the case, I need to talk with the classroom teachers. Why haven't they covered it recently? Has the curriculum changed? Are they approaching the subject differently? Is there still an opportunity to connect the game to what they're doing? I don't want to force an integration that doesn't make sense, but I also don't want a perfectly good lesson to disappear simply because I haven't had a reason to bring it out.
Revisiting, Testing, and Updating
So that's the process I've been working through. I'm identifying games that haven't been played in a three-year cycle, looking at why they've been neglected, and finding opportunities to bring them back when the timing makes sense. And then comes the important part: actually playing them. A lesson can look great on paper and fall completely flat in practice. The opposite can also happen. Sometimes I'll revisit a game I haven't played in years and wonder why I ever stopped using it. Other times, I'll discover exactly why I stopped. But either way, I learn something.
I can make adjustments, observe how students respond, and decide whether the lesson deserves a place in the collection. Sometimes that means a substantial overhaul. Sometimes it means simplifying a few rules, improving the diagrams, or clarifying instructions that made sense to me when I originally wrote them but might confuse another teacher trying to teach the lesson. And sometimes, it means getting rid of the lesson altogether.
Why So Many Updates?
If you've been following Montessori Physical Education recently, you've probably noticed that I've been publishing quite a few updates to existing lessons. That's not a coincidence. I released two more updated lessons today, and I have three more in the works. Some of these updates are substantial, with new gameplay mechanics or a completely different approach to the integration. Others are relatively minor, with clearer instructions, improved diagrams, or adjustments that make the game easier for another teacher to understand and implement. But they all come from the same process: revisiting what I've created, testing it with students, and asking whether it still deserves to be part of the collection.
When Is a Lesson Actually Finished?
I think one of the hardest decisions an artist has to make is deciding when a piece of work is finished. Whether you're a musician, painter, or writer, there's always something else you could change. Another note, another brushstroke, another sentence. At some point, you have to decide that the work is complete and leave it alone. I'd like to think of my PE lessons as part of the art of play. Designing a game, finding the right mechanics, and figuring out how to connect movement to an academic concept has a creative element. But my lessons are also something else. They're manuals. And manuals can, and probably should, be updated when those updates make them easier to use and understand.
Unlike a painting hanging on a wall, a lesson plan doesn't necessarily have to reach a point where it's permanently finished. If I discover a clearer way to explain a rule, a better diagram, or a small adjustment that improves the experience for students, why wouldn't I make that change? On the other hand, I don't need to reinvent something that already works. Not every lesson needs a new version. Not every game needs additional rules or a clever new mechanic. Sometimes the best decision is to leave it exactly as it is. That's the balance I'm trying to find. I want to be willing to improve my work without feeling compelled to change it constantly. I want to recognize when a lesson genuinely needs revision and when my time would be better spent simply teaching it again. And I certainly don't want to confuse making something different with making something better.
Which brings me back to Michael Dorer's advice.
“Fix it or ditch it” isn't really about cleaning out a closet. It's about being intentional with the materials we choose to put in front of students.
A good lesson shouldn't be kept simply because it's always been there. And a potentially great lesson shouldn't be abandoned just because it needs a little work. Sometimes the material needs to change. Sometimes the lesson needs to change. And sometimes, the teacher needs to change. But sometimes, nothing needs to change at all. The trick is figuring out which one it is.