This study aims to critically examine the potential of Montessori education to support inclusive ECE in Southern Africa and to provide conceptual insights for reframed Montessorian practices in this context. Specifically, the study:

Inclusive education is seen as a way to remove barriers to learning and participation for all learners, regardless of ability, language or socioeconomic background (De Souza, Kaunda & Potgieter 2024). As Underwood, Valeo and Wood (2012) noted, inclusive education involves culturally responsive practices, differentiated instruction and child-sensitive environments. It ensures that all children, regardless of their abilities or backgrounds, have fair access to learning opportunities by promoting participation, accommodating diverse needs and creating supportive, flexible and non-discriminatory environments. In ECE, inclusivity goes beyond physical access; it includes adapting teaching strategies, materials and classroom dynamics to serve a wide range of learners, including those with disabilities, from minority groups or experiencing socioeconomic disadvantages. In Southern Africa, inclusive education is a priority, aligned with the SDGs, which stress equitable, quality education for all. However, despite policy progress, actual implementation remains a big challenge. Cultural misconceptions, scarce resources and limited teacher training hinder the development of genuinely inclusive environments.

Early childhood education encompasses the holistic development of children from birth to age before they enter formal schooling (South Africa, Department of Social Development [DoSD] 2015). It usually focuses on cognitive, emotional, social and physical growth (Neuman et al. 2014). It is a vital stage that influences lifelong learning, behaviour and well-being. Still, ECE faces challenges such as inadequate infrastructure, underqualified staff and inconsistent policy execution. Research studies have constantly argued that adopting a transformative approach rooted in culturally relevant and pedagogically effective frameworks can equip young learners with the values, skills and knowledge for a sustainable future.

Montessori education is a child-centred, constructivist approach developed by Maria Montessori in the early 20th century. Montessori education offers a pedagogical model supporting autonomy and holistic development (Moll 2004). It is based on the belief that children learn best through self-directed activity, hands-on learning and collaborative play within carefully prepared environments. Montessori’s philosophy respects individual differences, promotes autonomy and encourages natural curiosity – attributes that align well with the broader aims of inclusive education. The Montessori method entails a structured yet flexible learning environment where children engage with didactic materials designed to develop sensory perception, practical life skills, literacy, numeracy and cultural understanding (Montessori 1912). Learning is self-paced and supported by trained educators who observe, support and facilitate rather than instruct in the traditional manner. Mixed-age classrooms encourage peer learning, leadership and social skills, while the focus on order, concentration and independence advocates for holistic growth.

In Malawi, the 2017 National Policy on ECD not only acknowledges considerable progress in Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) access but also highlights persisting disparities in inclusivity, especially for vulnerable groups. The policy reveals that ‘only 45.36 per cent of targeted ECD children attend ECD centers’ (p. 15), leaving over half of the target population, mostly in rural areas and among children with disabilities, without access to early education. The concept of inclusion is defined within the policy as ‘the creation of an enabling environment for all children to access basic and essential ECD services regardless of their gender, social, economic, political, religious, physical and health status’ (p. 6). However, implementation lags significantly behind this vision. For instance, the policy reports that ‘most ECD centers are not child and disability friendly… There are inadequate ECD services for children with special needs’ (p. 22). Additionally, it highlights that ‘children with special needs, children on the street and other vulnerable children’ remain the most underserved (p. 22). Efforts to improve inclusivity include strategic goals like early identification and referral for children with disabilities, development of inclusive infrastructure and training for caregivers. Nonetheless, limited resources, inadequate infrastructure and lack of trained personnel hinder the realisation of an inclusive ECD framework. The policy states, ‘despite these remarkable achievements, the sub-sector still faces a number of challenges which include… insufficient qualified and motivated caregivers, limited play and learning materials’ (p. 10).

South Africa’s National Integrated ECD Policy (2015) presents a progressive vision for inclusive education, but implementation challenges persist. The policy links ECD to equity and inclusivity in that:

This broad and rights-based view is rooted in constitutional and international commitments to equality and non-discrimination. The policy explicitly commits to inclusivity, stating: ‘Specific attention also needs to be given to the vulnerability of children with disabilities to abuse, neglect and exploitation’ (p. 27). This includes children with disabilities from rural areas and those in poverty. The state’s obligations extend beyond mere provision: ‘measures to address barriers faced by vulnerable children, including young children living in poverty, those living in underserviced areas and young children with disabilities’ (p. 25). Despite this progressive framing, the policy acknowledges deep disparities in access and quality:

According to the South African ECD policy, rural, informal and marginalised communities lack access to registered centres, and services are fragmented and not comprehensive. A critical shortcoming is the lack of inclusive design in infrastructure and curriculum. The policy notes: ‘Early childhood strategies do not, in the main, consider the learning needs of children with disabilities’ (p. 44). Moreover, insufficient intersectoral coordination undermines the implementation of inclusive objectives.

The Eswatini Education and Training Sector Policy (2018) presents inclusive education as a foundational value but highlights significant implementation challenges, particularly in the early childhood phase. The policy recognises ECCE as a vital part of the education system and calls for equitable access across all social groups:

Despite this progressive stance, the policy notes that ECCE in Eswatini shows that:

As a result, access is uneven, with rural areas particularly underserved. There is no mention of a government-funded universal pre-primary education system, but the commitment to inclusion is clearly stated:

However, in practice, inclusive provisions for children with disabilities or those from marginalised communities remain minimal at the ECCE level. The policy identifies structural gaps such as the lack of trained ECCE practitioners, insufficient regulation of private ECCE centres and the absence of a unified curriculum. These limitations hinder the full realisation of inclusive early education. Although there are goals to ‘develop and introduce an articulated ECCE curriculum to ensure the harmonised provision of standardised, quality ECCE services and introduction to age-appropriate life skills’ (p. 24), these are yet to be implemented.

The Zimbabwe National Early Learning Policy (2023) highlights a strong commitment to inclusion. It:

It situates inclusion within its values framework, which:

Despite this policy ambition, there is an inequitable provision for children from rural areas and vulnerable households, inadequate participation of children with disabilities and insufficient quality of services. Studies confirm that many rural ECDE centres lack ramps or accessible facilities. This reveals a gap between policy rhetoric and reality: while the policy formally mandates inclusion and equitable access, underfunding and weak infrastructure, teacher training deficits and cultural stigma around disability continue to hamper genuine inclusive ECE practice.

Although the Malawian ECE policy does not explicitly reference Montessori pedagogy, it reflects several aligned principles, particularly in its recognition of holistic and child-centred development. The policy emphasises that ‘children progress at a unique rate, have an individual learning style and possess diverse abilities’ (p. 9), echoing Montessori’s foundational belief in respect for the individual child’s developmental pace. Furthermore, the emphasis on experiential learning – ‘young children learn through active exploration of their environments where there is a balance between self-discovery and adult initiated/selected activities’ (p. 9) – mirrors Montessori’s hands-on and discovery-based approach to learning. The idea that ‘children’s learning is based on prior knowledge and experiences… guided by nurturing adults’ (p. 9) similarly resonates with the Montessori emphasis on guided independence and a prepared environment. However, the application of these principles appears more philosophical than practical. The policy’s implementation strategies focus heavily on CBCCs and volunteer caregivers, with minimal reference to structured pedagogical models. There is no formal alignment with Montessori’s defined materials, structured independence or mixed-age classrooms. Moreover, while the Montessori method advocates for well-trained, specialised teachers, Malawi’s ECD system struggles with ‘more untrained caregivers working in ECD centers with no salary/honoraria’ and ‘high caregiver turnover’ (p. 16). This inconsistency suggests a gap between policy and practice in quality pedagogy.

The South African ECD policy does not specifically reference Montessori education; however, several underlying Montessori-aligned principles are present, albeit in implicit forms. These include child-centred pedagogy, holistic development and an emphasis on the role of the environment in learning. The policy advocates that:

This echoes the Montessori’s focus on the cognitive, emotional, physical and social dimensions of the child. It also supports ‘a holistic curriculum, active child play with concrete materials, and sensitive, mediated caregiver-child interaction’ (p. 114), aligning with Montessori’s emphasis on experiential and self-directed learning. However, practical application is cumbersome. Public ECD programmes rely on generic or non-standardised curricula, and training of ECD practitioners varies widely in quality. The policy acknowledges this inconsistency in that the quality of ECD service varies widely and is not responsive to children’s developmental needs. Moreover, Montessori’s key structural components, like multi-age groupings, specialised learning materials and carefully prepared environments, are not systematically embedded in South Africa’s mainstream ECD settings. Resource constraints, especially in underprivileged areas, make the implementation of such structured pedagogical approaches difficult. While some private and NGO or NPO-run centres do implement Montessori education, these are primarily fee based and concentrated in urban areas, thus inaccessible to most children. This reinforces the gap between policy ideals and educational practice, particularly for marginalised groups.

The Eswatini Education and Training Sector Policy does not explicitly reference the Montessori method; however, several Montessori-aligned principles can be inferred from its objectives for ECD. The policy aspires to ‘develop and adopt a school readiness programme, including the development of early learning development standards and ensure the establishment of sufficient additional ECCDE posts to meet agreed provisioning norms’ (p. 42), which closely aligns with Montessori’s multi-dimensional and child-centred educational philosophy. Montessori education is fundamentally grounded in the belief that children learn best in a structured and prepared environment that allows self-directed exploration. The Eswatini policy echoes this when advocating to ‘develop and introduce an articulated ECCE curriculum to ensure the harmonised provision of standardised, quality ECCE services and introduction to age-appropriate life skills’ (p. 24). This reflects an understanding of developmental readiness, a key tenet of Montessori pedagogy. However, the implementation of Montessori-like principles appears to be mostly confined to better-resourced and privately operated ECCE centres in urban settings. There is no system-wide integration of Montessori practices, and the current regulatory gaps leave room for wide variability in pedagogical approaches. The lack of standardised training for ECCE practitioners is a further challenge. The policy wants to ‘ensure that every classroom in every ECCDE centre has at least one trained teacher or caregiver’ (p. 42). Without professionalised training, even implicit Montessori-inspired practices, such as emphasis on observation, independence and hands-on materials, are unlikely to be systematically applied or sustained.

Although Zimbabwean policy does not explicitly reference ‘Montessori’, elements of its child-centred thrust resonate with Montessorian values. For instance, the Infant School Module is described as ‘for pupils from ECD A to Grade 2, and ensures quality early learning for optimal development and school readiness’ (p. 2). The policy promotes a responsive curriculum with learning materials available and equitably distributed and ‘ensuring a responsive curriculum supported by instructions materials that are available and equitably distributed to all learners, and that there is professionally qualified staff’ (p. 14). The policy reports that in rural ECDE practice, teachers have established learning centres: maths play, language play, culture play, designed to promote children’s independence and their ability to make decisions, mirroring Montessori’s prepared environment approach. However, the constraints of space, lack of materials and lack of guidance in pedagogy mean these centres fall short of Montessori fidelity. Thus, while principles of learner-centred activity, independence and responsive materials exist in practice and policy, they are informal, inconsistent and unaligned with a fully Montessorian framework.

The integration of Montessori principles into ECE across Southern Africa is gaining momentum as educators and policymakers seek pedagogical approaches that promote inclusive education and align with SDGs. Despite this growing interest, a significant gap remains in understanding and applying these principles in local contexts. The Montessori method emphasises child-centred learning, sensory-based education and the importance of prepared environments (Montessori 1912). Its core principles include respect for the child, the concept of the absorbent mind, sensitive periods, auto-education and viewing the teacher as a guide rather than a traditional instructor (Moll 2004). These concepts are especially valuable in ECE, where inclusive education should be a priority as an educational foundation. Montessori principles accommodate diverse needs and abilities, which is essential in inclusive settings as they promote autonomy, self-directed learning and personalised education (Murray et al. 2023).

In Malawi, community-based ECE centres have begun integrating some Montessori principles informally, even without official recognition (Wisbey 2023). According to Neuman et al. (2014), CBCCs serve as platforms for early education, health and nutrition. Here, principles such as independence, sensorial exploration and practical life are embedded informally. These centres are run by local volunteers who use locally sourced materials resembling Montessori tools (Munthali et al. 2014). The pedagogy is adapted to local languages, customs and ecological contexts. Challenges remain, including limited teacher training. Nonetheless, these centres demonstrate how Montessori concepts can be localised to support inclusive ECE.

South Africa boasts the most structured ECE sector among these countries, with a relatively high number of accredited Montessori schools. The South African Montessori Association (SAMA) plays a key role in standardisation and training. However, ‘it is therefore not surprising that all Montessori schools in South Africa are privately owned’ (Omidire et al. 2025:9). The national curriculum does not strongly foreground Montessori’s emphasis on individual pacing and non-competitive learning. Although the government mandates inclusive education through the White Paper 6, Montessori practices are rarely mainstreamed in public ECE settings (Omidire et al. 2025). Nonetheless, some integrated models exist where public schools adopt Montessori methods through partnerships with NPOs like Inclusive Education South Africa, offering a blueprint for inclusive ECE.

In Eswatini, interest in ECE has grown following policy shifts endorsing early education (Matsvange, Mudimba & Simangele 2021). While Montessori practices are not yet common, particular attention is being paid to them among private providers, as is the case elsewhere in Southern Africa. Nevertheless, systemic issues hinder broader adoption. National ECE policies do not explicitly incorporate Montessori or similar pedagogies. Most Montessori implementations remain confined to urban and affluent regions, which limits access for marginalised populations. Lack of exposure among educators and policymakers results in fragmented adoption (Matsvange et al. 2021). Nonetheless, pilot programmes supported by NGOs illustrate that Montessori-based interventions can improve learning outcomes and promote inclusivity for children with disabilities and from disadvantaged backgrounds.

In Zimbabwe, ECE has benefited from increased government support, especially since the introduction of mandated 2 years of pre-primary education (Mangwaya, Blignaut & Pillay 2016). Some private and NGOs have adopted Montessori practices; however, widespread implementation faces hurdles. Mupondi-Masuka, Nyika and Kangai (2017) observed that many early childhood educators are trained in conventional methods and lack Montessori-specific pedagogical skills. Additionally, Montessori is frequently viewed as an elitist and Western approach, incompatible with local cultural and educational norms. Still, case studies from urban centres show that Montessori-based ECE centres successfully incorporate inclusive practices by adapting resources and classroom structures to local contexts.