I've spent the last few days reading a lot of writing bot...

I've spent the last few days reading a lot of writing both about Maria Montessori and some of her own writings about her teaching method. There is a lot to consider.
A dichotomy arises from the twin ideas of 'secure autonomy' and 'purposeful activity'. How do the edges of 'purposeful activity' and compulsive or addictive behaviour get separated when a student has chosen to engage in repetitive activity that, from an external observation, employs skills but does not seem to provide an increase to potential?
When working, as I currently do, for a department of education, the direction of purpose is set by policy; a reflection of current paradigmns distilled from those who claim a stake in public education. This is a melange of citizenry and shifting powers of influence, swaying and pulling at curriculum, averaging it around the teacher and pupils, defining what is purposeful and mandating what is necessary. This curriculum states clearly what activities are acceptable and those that are deemed to be frivolous.
In the private arena, where an underlying principal or methodology leads the curriculum, where is the definition of 'purpose' that judges the value of an activity? The Montessori method claims to be non-secular and respectful of diversity and student driven investigation, does that mean that the students decide what is purposeful, or, as I suspect, do the more localised stakeholders of parents and teachers determine the value system that the children are to be guided towards.
I hope to find out.
"Bird"[ballpoint on scrap piece of paper during budget meeting... and yes, I was still listening!]