Do Montessori Children Have to Share?

One of the questions we hear most often from families visiting Evviva Montessori is, “Do the children have to share?” The answer often surprises people. At Evviva, we encourage kindness, generosity, cooperation, and respect for others, but we generally do not require a child to immediately surrender a material simply because another child wants it. Instead, we teach children how to navigate a more complicated social reality: sometimes someone else is using something you want, and learning what to do next is an important part of growing up.

The word "sharing" can be misleading because we use it to refer to several different behaviors.

Two children drawing from the same basket of crayons are sharing a resource. A child offering part of a snack is sharing something they possess. But when two children want the same puzzle, truck, or Montessori material, the issue is usually not sharing at all. It is turn-taking. If only one child can meaningfully use an object at a time, requiring the first child to give it up simply because another child asks may teach compliance, but it does not necessarily teach generosity.

Maria Montessori placed enormous importance on concentration. In The Discovery of the Child, she described children becoming deeply absorbed in purposeful activity and argued that adults should protect rather than constantly interrupt this concentration.

That principle remains central to Montessori education. Modern descriptions of authentic Montessori practice similarly emphasize child-selected activity, carefully sequenced materials, freedom within limits, and substantial periods of uninterrupted work (Marshall, 2017). Research has also found distinctive patterns of engagement and self-directed learning in Montessori environments.

This changes what happens when two children want the same material. Suppose Maya is completing a puzzle when Leo approaches and reaches for it. Rather than saying, “Maya, you need to share,” a guide might say, “Maya is using that right now. You may have a turn when she is finished.” For an older or more verbal child, the guide might model, “May I use it when you're done?” Maya's concentration is protected, while Leo practices something equally important: accepting that wanting something does not automatically make it available.

Waiting may seem passive, but for a young child it can involve significant social and cognitive work. The child has to recognize what they want, notice that someone else is using it, inhibit the impulse to take it, tolerate disappointment, communicate, and decide what to do while waiting. These abilities overlap with the development of executive functions such as inhibitory control, working memory, and flexible attention. Executive-function development is particularly important during the preschool years, although researchers caution that measuring these abilities in very young children can itself be complex.

Montessori education has become particularly interesting to researchers studying these abilities. A study comparing classic Montessori, supplemented Montessori, and conventional preschool programs found greater school-year gains in executive function and social problem-solving among children in high-fidelity classic Montessori classrooms (Lillard, 2012). A later longitudinal study of Montessori preschool children examined executive function alongside social understanding, academic achievement, mastery orientation, creativity, and enjoyment of school and found advantages in several developmental areas (Lillard et al., 2017).

The research is not completely uniform. Denervaud and colleagues, for example, found advantages for Montessori children in academic outcomes and creativity but did not find broad differences in executive functioning aside from working memory. A French longitudinal study likewise found Montessori and conventional groups comparable on several measures, including executive functions and social skills, although some academic differences emerged for particular groups of children. Educational development is complicated, and no single classroom practice should be presented as a guaranteed route to a particular outcome.

The broader evidence, however, is encouraging. A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis found that Montessori education was associated with positive academic and nonacademic outcomes overall, with nonacademic measures including self-regulation, social skills, creativity, and school well-being. More recently, a large randomized study of public Montessori programs found that by the end of kindergarten, Montessori children showed advantages in areas including reading, short-term memory, theory of mind, and executive function.

None of this means that waiting for the Pink Tower is a miniature neuroscience intervention. The more useful point is that ordinary classroom life gives children repeated opportunities to practice developing skills. Someone else has the material.

The child is disappointed. A trusted adult provides language and support without instantly removing the obstacle. Eventually the material becomes available, and the child discovers that “not now” did not mean “never.”

This is especially relevant in an infant-and-toddler environment. Very young children are still developing language, impulse control, emotional regulation, and an understanding of other people's perspectives. A toddler who grabs a truck is not demonstrating a character flaw, and a toddler who does not want to immediately surrender one is not necessarily selfish. Both children are learning how social life works.

Our role is therefore not to eliminate every frustrating experience. If Leo is upset because Maya has the truck, a guide can acknowledge the feeling while maintaining the boundary: “You really wanted that truck. Maya is using it. You can have it when she's finished.” The child receives empathy without learning that distress does not automatically entitle them to something another person is using.

Families sometimes wonder whether this will make children possessive. Montessori freedom, however, always exists within limits. A child cannot snatch something from another child's hands, deliberately disrupt another child's work, hoard materials, or use classroom materials destructively. The principle is not, “I touched it first, so it's mine.” It is, “While I am purposefully using this material, my work is respected. When I am finished, I return it for someone else.”

That distinction is reinforced by the Montessori prepared environment. There is often one example of a particular Montessori material rather than an identical copy for every child. When that material is absent from its shelf, the child discovers that someone else is using it. They may observe, choose another activity, ask for a later turn, or simply wait.

The environment, therefore, provides natural opportunities for flexibility and self-regulation rather than asking adults to arbitrate every interaction.

It also protects concentration. A toddler may spend ten minutes transferring objects, arranging blocks, fitting puzzle pieces, or repeating the same practical-life activity. To an adult, the repetition may look unnecessary. Montessori saw it differently: repetition can be part of mastery. Contemporary Montessori research continues to examine how self-paced work, choice, and sustained engagement support children's ability to regulate their own learning.

The social implications may be just as important. When children learn that their own work will be respected, they also learn that another person's work deserves the same protection. This is part of what Montessori called Grace and Courtesy: learning how to ask, wait, observe without interrupting, move around someone's work, offer assistance, return materials, and respond respectfully when another person says no.

Research on Montessori classrooms has found positive social and academic outcomes. Ansari and Winsler's study of public Montessori preschool programs, for example, examined children's pre-academic, behavioral, and socio-emotional development across the school year and found meaningful gains, although outcomes varied among groups of children. Research following Montessori students into later life has also found associations between Montessori attendance and measures including engagement, social trust, self-confidence, and general well-being, although such observational findings cannot by themselves prove that Montessori schooling caused those outcomes.

Perhaps the most interesting result of not forcing immediate sharing is that it leaves room for genuine generosity. Sometimes a child who knows their turn is secure notices that a friend is waiting and says, “You can have it,” or invites another child to join. The gesture matters precisely because it was voluntary. There is an important difference between handing something over because an adult demanded it and noticing another person's needs and deciding to respond kindly.

This is why we should be careful not to treat sharing and kindness as synonyms. A child can surrender a toy while feeling angry and powerless, while another child can respectfully say, “You can have it when I'm finished.” The first may look cooperative from across the room, but the second interaction may involve considerably more sophisticated social skills: communication, patience, boundaries, trust, and mutual respect.

At Evviva Montessori, then, the goal is larger than teaching children to “share their toys.” We want children to understand that their needs matter and that other people's needs matter too. They can concentrate without being unnecessarily interrupted, wait without assuming they have been forgotten, experience disappointment without having every obstacle removed, and eventually discover the satisfaction of choosing generosity for themselves.

Sometimes kindness means giving something to a friend. Sometimes it means inviting someone to join. Sometimes it means waiting. And sometimes it means respecting another person's work long enough to hear the words, “I'm finished now. It's your turn.”

References & Further Reading

Ansari, A., & Winsler, A. (2014). Montessori public school pre-K programs and the school readiness of low-income Black and Latino children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(4), 1066–1079.

Courtier, P., Gardes, M. L., Van der Henst, J. B., Noveck, I. A., Croset, M. C., Epinat-Duclos, J., Léone, J., & Prado, J. (2021). Effects of Montessori education on the academic, cognitive, and social development of disadvantaged preschoolers. Child Development, 92(5), 2069–2088.

Denervaud, S., Knebel, J. F., Hagmann, P., & Gentaz, E. (2019). Beyond executive functions, creativity skills benefit academic outcomes: Insights from Montessori education. PLOS ONE, 14(11), e0225319.

Kersna, L., & colleagues. (2025). Supporting self-regulated learning in primary education: Insights from Montessori educational environments. Frontiers in Education.

Lillard, A. S. (2012). Preschool children's development in classic Montessori, supplemented Montessori, and conventional programs. Journal of School Psychology, 50(3), 379–401.

Lillard, A. S. (2017). Montessori: The Science Behind the Genius (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Lillard, A. S., Heise, M. J., Richey, E. M., Tong, X., Hart, A., & Bray, P. M. (2017). Montessori preschool elevates and equalizes child outcomes: A longitudinal study. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1783.

Lillard, A. S., et al. (2025). A national randomized controlled trial of the impact of public Montessori preschool.

Marshall, C. (2017). Montessori education: A review of the evidence base. npj Science of Learning, 2, 11.

Montessori, M. (1967). The Discovery of the Child. Ballantine Books.

Randolph, J. J., Bryson, A., Menon, L., Henderson, D. K., Manuel, A. K., Michaels, S.,

Rosenstein, D. L. W., McPherson, W., O'Grady, R., & Lillard, A. S. (2023). Montessori education's impact on academic and nonacademic outcomes: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 19(3).

Standing, E. M. (1998). Maria Montessori: Her Life and Work. Plume.