How “activist” is Sheridan?

[Anonymous]

I’ve read on this board that social justice is hugely emphasized at GDS and the centerpiece of many of the school’s new initiatives. I have no idea how true this is but I’m wondering if Sheridan is thought of similarly? I know there are families who have been part of both communities and I’m hoping they might chime in.

We are moderate Democrats and agree or at least are comfortable with almost all progressive perspectives. But we don’t want an entire curriculum /school identity centered on social justice, particularly in Lower School. Would most early elementary kids at Sheridan describe themselves as “activists”? Or does that start in upper elementary /Middle? Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But we don’t want an entire curriculum /school identity centered on social justice, particularly in Lower School.

This is hardly an accurate description of the GDS curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read on this board that social justice is hugely emphasized at GDS and the centerpiece of many of the school’s new initiatives. I have no idea how true this is but I’m wondering if Sheridan is thought of similarly? I know there are families who have been part of both communities and I’m hoping they might chime in.

We are moderate Democrats and agree or at least are comfortable with almost all progressive perspectives. But we don’t want an entire curriculum /school identity centered on social justice, particularly in Lower School. Would most early elementary kids at Sheridan describe themselves as “activists”? Or does that start in upper elementary /Middle? Thank you!

Would it be a bad thing if they did? The goal of activism is to move society towards a greater good. For individuals to advocate a position and both be the change they want to see. If kids see themselves as activist wouldn’t it mean they are being taught good civic and social engagement skills?

So is your question about education on activism or specific activism around social justice?

[Anonymous]

How do you think values get turned into laws? Activism.

Why the disdain for those advocating for better policies to ensure justice and equity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read on this board that social justice is hugely emphasized at GDS and the centerpiece of many of the school’s new initiatives. I have no idea how true this is but I’m wondering if Sheridan is thought of similarly? I know there are families who have been part of both communities and I’m hoping they might chime in.

We are moderate Democrats and agree or at least are comfortable with almost all progressive perspectives. But we don’t want an entire curriculum /school identity centered on social justice, particularly in Lower School. Would most early elementary kids at Sheridan describe themselves as “activists”? Or does that start in upper elementary /Middle? Thank you!

Would it be a bad thing if they did? The goal of activism is to move society towards a greater good. For individuals to advocate a position and both be the change they want to see. If kids see themselves as activist wouldn’t it mean they are being taught good civic and social engagement skills?

So is your question about education on activism or specific activism around social justice?

Not to be a jerk, but could you just answer the question? OP didn’t ask what you thought about it, she just asked about how pervasive it is. (Although, OP, I think you have your answer).

For what it’s worth, while the goal of activism may well to be to move society to a greater good, it is far from true that everyone agrees on what the greater good is on any given issue, or that everyone agrees on whether activism in its more typical forms at schools nowadays is the right way to achieve it. Teaching students ways to think and advocate and use their educations for the greater good is a noble goal of any school, but what that looks like will vary among schools, and there are numerous opinions about how it should (and should not) be done.

Some schools focus pretty heavily on activism (largely by protest, letter writing, and similar), and some of those same schools tend to focus that activism towards the far-side of the current progressive movement’s issues. Maybe that’s what you want for your kid, maybe not. Maybe you think that’s the role of education, maybe you don’t. OP’s just asking what Sheridan is like, and you’re suggesting that anyone who doesn’t think a school that views its mission as training activists for far-left progressive causes must be anti a good world or against the “greater good” (whatever that is). Not true….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve read on this board that social justice is hugely emphasized at GDS and the centerpiece of many of the school’s new initiatives. I have no idea how true this is but I’m wondering if Sheridan is thought of similarly? I know there are families who have been part of both communities and I’m hoping they might chime in.

We are moderate Democrats and agree or at least are comfortable with almost all progressive perspectives. But we don’t want an entire curriculum /school identity centered on social justice, particularly in Lower School. Would most early elementary kids at Sheridan describe themselves as “activists”? Or does that start in upper elementary /Middle? Thank you!

Would it be a bad thing if they did? The goal of activism is to move society towards a greater good. For individuals to advocate a position and both be the change they want to see. If kids see themselves as activist wouldn’t it mean they are being taught good civic and social engagement skills?

So is your question about education on activism or specific activism around social justice?

Not to be a jerk, but could you just answer the question? OP didn’t ask what you thought about it, she just asked about how pervasive it is. (Although, OP, I think you have your answer).

For what it’s worth, while the goal of activism may well to be to move society to a greater good, it is far from true that everyone agrees on what the greater good is on any given issue, or that everyone agrees on whether activism in its more typical forms at schools nowadays is the right way to achieve it. Teaching students ways to think and advocate and use their educations for the greater good is a noble goal of any school, but what that looks like will vary among schools, and there are numerous opinions about how it should (and should not) be done.

Some schools focus pretty heavily on activism (largely by protest, letter writing, and similar), and some of those same schools tend to focus that activism towards the far-side of the current progressive movement’s issues. Maybe that’s what you want for your kid, maybe not. Maybe you think that’s the role of education, maybe you don’t. OP’s just asking what Sheridan is like, and you’re suggesting that anyone who doesn’t think a school that views its mission as training activists for far-left progressive causes must be anti a good world or against the “greater good” (whatever that is). Not true….

DP, but I think PP actually explained it well. We have kids at Sheridan (younger grades), and yes, some of what they learn is specific causes. For example they had a unit last year where they discussed Black Lives Matter. How it started, what it was about, etc. But I think the “educating students to be activists” IS more about teaching them to strive for the greater good and how to do that. Speaking up and advocating for causes you support, for example, and how to do that. Yes, it obviously leans left, so they believe in climate change and racial equity, etc. But IMO they focus more on teaching the kids how to think critically and come to conclusions and speak up for themselves. I still think parents have way more influence on the child’s actual beliefs. But yeah, if you’re a climate change denier, think “all lives matter” and think transgender people are just chasing a fad…Sheridan is probably too “activist” for you.

[Anonymous]

OP here. I’m having trouble articulating the nuance of what I’m asking about… as an example, I would very much welcome a study unit on BLM. And if it made my kid want to hang a sign on our door, great. But if they actually made the signs in class and encouraged the kids to hang them, I wouldn’t be thrilled. I also wouldn’t love it if a teacher took all the kids to a protest. Or if other kids turned on a student who asked a question about police POV.

If these sorts of things happened rarely, it wouldn’t be an issue. But if it was, say, a weekly occurrence, the school wouldn’t be a good fit for us. I guess I want DS to come into his own views naturally and gradually, as I was allowed to do. I assume those views will be left leaning but I don’t want to micromanage that.

From their media, I feel like I would be comfortable with sheridan’s approach, largely because they’ve been educating in this vein for a long time and aren’t just now hiring a dei consultant and adopting everything at once without regard to age and other factors.

I’m grateful for the firsthand account and eager to hear more.

[Anonymous]

Sheridan parent here. You should ask the school admin for their own self assessment of where the school stands. The curriculum definitely has a social justice component. Kids will learn about food insecurity, racism, red lining, etc. at the age-appropriate grade and time. There is a young activist club in the middle school for kids who want to do more. There are also affinity groups for Students of Color, LGBTQ+, etc. These groups are for those who want to join. It should be noted that there are definitely right leaning/Republican families at the school. You might ask to speak with them - even though you aren't right leaning - because you could see what their comfort level is. One thing you might like is that kids are taught to understand all sides of an issue. They participate in debates in older grades and kids must assume/defend points of view that may differ from their own to better understand where others are coming from. In my estimation, GDS, Burke and Lowell are probably slightly to the left of Sheridan if that helps. I'd say Sheridan is more "activist" than Sidwell, Maret (though it could be close), the Cathedral schools, St. Pats, NPS, WIS. You get the idea.

[Anonymous]

Former Sheridan parent here. My kids participated in activism at Sheridan that was student lead. We have always talked to our kids about how people have different perspectives, experiences, and views. Sheridan did the same so we were all rowing in the same direction. People who have met my kids have commented on how thoughtful they are about some fairly complex issues, how comfortable they are discussing issues regarding race, socioeconomics, equity, civil rights, etc. They were not indoctrinated at Sheridan but were informed and learned how to think critically about what they thought and believed and the various ways they could take action regarding issues they cared about. There are other schools that do this as wekk but in my experience they don’t indoctrinate or force activism.

[Anonymous]

They make picket signs everyday there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do you think values get turned into laws? Activism.

Why the disdain for those advocating for better policies to ensure justice and equity?

I think the OPs point is that in elementary school a child needs a focus on strong writing and math and a broad view of history and science. We need a solidly educated community for activist to have any standing once they reach the later years. If they can't write well and don't have critical thinking skills and the ability to have an opinion of their own they are good to no one.
I believe strongly in SJ but agree with OP that it is a concern if focus on that crowds out important curriculum needed in the younger years in order to be a well educated person as a young adult.

[Anonymous]

I’m a recent graduate of Sheridan (within the past 5 years). The school focuses *heavily* on social justice and activism. I attended Sheridan from Kindergarten until Eighth grade, and even in that time, I noticed changes.

In History/Civics courses, we were not allowed to learn about American history. We learned about every other culture under the sun, but never America. I have no issue with a balanced curriculum that includes a heavy dose of traditionally overlooked cultures, but it was odd for America to be omitted. There was no mention of the American Revolution or the Colonies. There was no talk of America’s contributions to World History. The basics of our government were not covered until the end of 8th grade.

The same was true in the Art and Music departments. We never talked about European composers or Painters.

When I started, we were allowed to take either French or Spanish. Around Middle School, that changed. The school began only offering Spanish classes, purportedly in the pursuit of ‘diversity’. I believe this decision was reversed a year or two later. At the time, they spoke of how Spanish was the language of more traditionally underserved cultures around the world.

One year, our Shakespeare unit was struck from the curriculum in favor of one that I seem to recall was called “social justice”. We watched news coverage of recent events and were lectured on the significance.

Those are just a few concrete examples.

I wanted to also mention the less concrete aspect. At Sheridan, there is “one true opinion.” And you’re expected to buy into it, wholeheartedly. Students are taught debatable opinions as gospel. In an environment like that, intellectual exploration is impossible. Sheridan prides itself on encouraging deep critical thinking, but this practice really cuts against all of the flowery language they stick in brochures.

[Anonymous]

Overboard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a recent graduate of Sheridan (within the past 5 years). The school focuses *heavily* on social justice and activism. I attended Sheridan from Kindergarten until Eighth grade, and even in that time, I noticed changes.

In History/Civics courses, we were not allowed to learn about American history. We learned about every other culture under the sun, but never America. I have no issue with a balanced curriculum that includes a heavy dose of traditionally overlooked cultures, but it was odd for America to be omitted. There was no mention of the American Revolution or the Colonies. There was no talk of America’s contributions to World History. The basics of our government were not covered until the end of 8th grade.

The same was true in the Art and Music departments. We never talked about European composers or Painters.

When I started, we were allowed to take either French or Spanish. Around Middle School, that changed. The school began only offering Spanish classes, purportedly in the pursuit of ‘diversity’. I believe this decision was reversed a year or two later. At the time, they spoke of how Spanish was the language of more traditionally underserved cultures around the world.

One year, our Shakespeare unit was struck from the curriculum in favor of one that I seem to recall was called “social justice”. We watched news coverage of recent events and were lectured on the significance.

Those are just a few concrete examples.

I wanted to also mention the less concrete aspect. At Sheridan, there is “one true opinion.” And you’re expected to buy into it, wholeheartedly. Students are taught debatable opinions as gospel. In an environment like that, intellectual exploration is impossible. Sheridan prides itself on encouraging deep critical thinking, but this practice really cuts against all of the flowery language they stick in brochures.

NP here. Appreciate this post very much. Lucid, well written, compelling.

[Anonymous]

OP again. Thank you to the parents posting and especially to the student who shared firsthand experience. The groupthink and curricular changes are exactly what I’m worried about, which is sad because I love everything else I know about the school. I know a handful of college kids who recently went to politically progressive schools that matched their beliefs. All ended up feeling like they couldn’t engage in debate the way I did back in the day at a liberal SLAC. Constant litmus testing. They envied their STEM counterparts who were more insulated from the expectations. But at least they are adults…

My hope is that the pendulum will swing again and, say, US history will make a resurgence but without the reflexive hero worship of the founding fathers, etc.

TBH, I would still prefer this school environment to a conservative one for DC, but I wish I could find something more “neutral,” where a student would feel comfortable respectfully questioning the dogma of the day. Does the student PP have any suggestions?