Are progressive schools a bad fit for parents who want to see academic progress?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We just left our progressive K-8 for a much more structured middle school. What we loved in K and 1st started to make us very frustrated as our child got older.

True of many progressive schools. Nature based, laid back, no screens, emphasis on curiosity and asking questions, lots of play, etc. It all works super well when kids are in preschool and K, but once kids aren’t able to read or do math in 1st some of the great aspects feel like a liability. I think it’s fine to jump to a different educational philosophy as a child grows.

I was the one who posted we left our progressive. Ended up going to a very traditional all boys school in the area. Was super concerned about the transition but both kids are doing great. We are happy we moved them in elementary, albeit one was 5th grade, because its a huge change in academic expectations and structure (in a good way).

[Anonymous]

Sorry, haven’t read the whole thread.

Given a group of kids who have age-appropriate self-control, the order in the classroom depends on the teachers. This can vary even within one school. It depends on a teacher structuring responsibility and student independence in a way the students can manage and grow throughout the year.

You can find it in public school, independent schools of different ilks and only very rarely in charter schools.

Most schools in the DMV, even those which grew from progressive roots, are far from 100% progressive. Why?
1. Because this market won’t tolerate it.
2. only the rare autodidact will propel themself through skill sets and knowledge they need for life. without some imposed guidance, encouragement, instruction and lessons in persistence many kids -not all- will flounder.

Good teachers know how to encourage independence and inquiry while providing structures that allow kids to develop skills, manage themselves and contribute to how their classroom runs.

As parents, you are looking for a run of good teachers who will help your kids thrive.
It will be luck whether you find it. The application of progressive teaching and learning is so variable, what people say it is gives only a rough outline.

Look for a school where you feel comfortable, so your child isn’t burdened by your daily dissatisfaction. For people fortunate enough to have the means for private school, choosing a school is not a life sentence. You can change schools as your child grows and changes.

Sorry about phone typos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, haven’t read the whole thread.

Given a group of kids who have age-appropriate self-control, the order in the classroom depends on the teachers. This can vary even within one school. It depends on a teacher structuring responsibility and student independence in a way the students can manage and grow throughout the year.

You can find it in public school, independent schools of different ilks and only very rarely in charter schools.

Most schools in the DMV, even those which grew from progressive roots, are far from 100% progressive. Why?
1. Because this market won’t tolerate it.
2. only the rare autodidact will propel themself through skill sets and knowledge they need for life. without some imposed guidance, encouragement, instruction and lessons in persistence many kids -not all- will flounder.

Good teachers know how to encourage independence and inquiry while providing structures that allow kids to develop skills, manage themselves and contribute to how their classroom runs.

As parents, you are looking for a run of good teachers who will help your kids thrive.
It will be luck whether you find it. The application of progressive teaching and learning is so variable, what people say it is gives only a rough outline.

Look for a school where you feel comfortable, so your child isn’t burdened by your daily dissatisfaction. For people fortunate enough to have the means for private school, choosing a school is not a life sentence. You can change schools as your child grows and changes.

Sorry about phone typos.

I mean, what are you paying for if you are not paying for a school where the admins make sure the teachers are good and your kids learn a defined set of skills and knowledge?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are trying to decide whether a progressive school is a good fit. There is a lot that we liked, but we wondered whether the academics were a bit squishy. Will be disappointed if we go in expecting to see regular and discernible academic progress?

This can be very school-dependent. Which progressive school/schools are you considering?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You have to know your child. It was not a good fit for my older child, who has learning disabilities. It was fabulous for my younger child, who is a self starter and intellectually curious. He loved the freedom and we definitely saw academic progress.

Why was it not a good fit for the child with LD? Why would traditional have been better?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to know your child. It was not a good fit for my older child, who has learning disabilities. It was fabulous for my younger child, who is a self starter and intellectually curious. He loved the freedom and we definitely saw academic progress.

Why was it not a good fit for the child with LD? Why would traditional have been better?

Progressive schools are based on the idea that if you give kids the right tools, they can explore and draw their own conclusions. My kid with LDs needed much more explicit, teacher-directed instruction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to know your child. It was not a good fit for my older child, who has learning disabilities. It was fabulous for my younger child, who is a self starter and intellectually curious. He loved the freedom and we definitely saw academic progress.

Why was it not a good fit for the child with LD? Why would traditional have been better?

Progressive schools are based on the idea that if you give kids the right tools, they can explore and draw their own conclusions. My kid with LDs needed much more explicit, teacher-directed instruction.

That is helpful thank you. What did that look like in the classroom for the older child? Did he just seem lost in the progressive school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to know your child. It was not a good fit for my older child, who has learning disabilities. It was fabulous for my younger child, who is a self starter and intellectually curious. He loved the freedom and we definitely saw academic progress.

Why was it not a good fit for the child with LD? Why would traditional have been better?

Progressive schools are based on the idea that if you give kids the right tools, they can explore and draw their own conclusions. My kid with LDs needed much more explicit, teacher-directed instruction.

That is helpful thank you. What did that look like in the classroom for the older child? Did he just seem lost in the progressive school?

Yes. And getting super dysregulated because he couldn't understand the expectations or the unspoken social rules that everyone else intuitively knew. And once he was diagnosed with dyslexia, our providers said he needed explicit instruction.

On the other hand, I can't emphasize enough how good it was for my gifted kid to be given the space to work things out for himself and to go as far and as deep as he wanted to. He thrived on the ability to make connections for himself (those same connections that his brother needed to be taught).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to know your child. It was not a good fit for my older child, who has learning disabilities. It was fabulous for my younger child, who is a self starter and intellectually curious. He loved the freedom and we definitely saw academic progress.

Why was it not a good fit for the child with LD? Why would traditional have been better?

Progressive schools are based on the idea that if you give kids the right tools, they can explore and draw their own conclusions. My kid with LDs needed much more explicit, teacher-directed instruction.

That is helpful thank you. What did that look like in the classroom for the older child? Did he just seem lost in the progressive school?

Yes. And getting super dysregulated because he couldn't understand the expectations or the unspoken social rules that everyone else intuitively knew. And once he was diagnosed with dyslexia, our providers said he needed explicit instruction.

On the other hand, I can't emphasize enough how good it was for my gifted kid to be given the space to work things out for himself and to go as far and as deep as he wanted to. He thrived on the ability to make connections for himself (those same connections that his brother needed to be taught).

But even the most gifted kid needs to be taught grammar and spelling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to know your child. It was not a good fit for my older child, who has learning disabilities. It was fabulous for my younger child, who is a self starter and intellectually curious. He loved the freedom and we definitely saw academic progress.

Why was it not a good fit for the child with LD? Why would traditional have been better?

Progressive schools are based on the idea that if you give kids the right tools, they can explore and draw their own conclusions. My kid with LDs needed much more explicit, teacher-directed instruction.

That is helpful thank you. What did that look like in the classroom for the older child? Did he just seem lost in the progressive school?

Yes. And getting super dysregulated because he couldn't understand the expectations or the unspoken social rules that everyone else intuitively knew. And once he was diagnosed with dyslexia, our providers said he needed explicit instruction.

On the other hand, I can't emphasize enough how good it was for my gifted kid to be given the space to work things out for himself and to go as far and as deep as he wanted to. He thrived on the ability to make connections for himself (those same connections that his brother needed to be taught).

But even the most gifted kid needs to be taught grammar and spelling.

🤷🏽‍♀️ He figured it out even without weekly spelling tests of random words (which don't really teach the rules of spelling anyway). To the extent I had to choose between critical thinking and spelling, I chose thinking. But I didn't have to choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to know your child. It was not a good fit for my older child, who has learning disabilities. It was fabulous for my younger child, who is a self starter and intellectually curious. He loved the freedom and we definitely saw academic progress.

Why was it not a good fit for the child with LD? Why would traditional have been better?

Progressive schools are based on the idea that if you give kids the right tools, they can explore and draw their own conclusions. My kid with LDs needed much more explicit, teacher-directed instruction.

That is helpful thank you. What did that look like in the classroom for the older child? Did he just seem lost in the progressive school?

Yes. And getting super dysregulated because he couldn't understand the expectations or the unspoken social rules that everyone else intuitively knew. And once he was diagnosed with dyslexia, our providers said he needed explicit instruction.

On the other hand, I can't emphasize enough how good it was for my gifted kid to be given the space to work things out for himself and to go as far and as deep as he wanted to. He thrived on the ability to make connections for himself (those same connections that his brother needed to be taught).

But even the most gifted kid needs to be taught grammar and spelling.

🤷🏽‍♀️ He figured it out even without weekly spelling tests of random words (which don't really teach the rules of spelling anyway). To the extent I had to choose between critical thinking and spelling, I chose thinking. But I didn't have to choose.

But you don’t know if he would have been better off in a traditional school with teachers who can better guide his inquiries. Maybe that was part of the progressive school. But no matter how smart and gifted a kid is, I don’t think just letting them teach themselves is at all sensible. Kids like that should be getting a ton of content served to them and start learning the research and writing skills that will enable them to enter into a profession. Otherwise what you just have the kid randomly reading books. Which maybe is what you want for your kid, but I think a lot of us envision something more guided and rigorous. Because especially if you are PAYING for this, you should expect that your child will be challenged and instructed.

[Anonymous]

My kids attend/attended a progressive k-8. What has struck me is that year after year, kids from the k-8 have risen to the top of their high schools. Not every kid, of course. But frequently and regularly, which to me speaks to the progressive model. Otherwise, the k8 had a freakish amount of bright kids. They have become valedictorians (where measures), presidential scholars, etc. And this is from a small school. And their high schools range from progressive to traditional to public magnet.

But I agree. It doesn’t work for everyone, but I also argue that it can be an effective and successful model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to know your child. It was not a good fit for my older child, who has learning disabilities. It was fabulous for my younger child, who is a self starter and intellectually curious. He loved the freedom and we definitely saw academic progress.

Why was it not a good fit for the child with LD? Why would traditional have been better?

Progressive schools are based on the idea that if you give kids the right tools, they can explore and draw their own conclusions. My kid with LDs needed much more explicit, teacher-directed instruction.

That is helpful thank you. What did that look like in the classroom for the older child? Did he just seem lost in the progressive school?

Yes. And getting super dysregulated because he couldn't understand the expectations or the unspoken social rules that everyone else intuitively knew. And once he was diagnosed with dyslexia, our providers said he needed explicit instruction.

On the other hand, I can't emphasize enough how good it was for my gifted kid to be given the space to work things out for himself and to go as far and as deep as he wanted to. He thrived on the ability to make connections for himself (those same connections that his brother needed to be taught).

But even the most gifted kid needs to be taught grammar and spelling.

🤷🏽‍♀️ He figured it out even without weekly spelling tests of random words (which don't really teach the rules of spelling anyway). To the extent I had to choose between critical thinking and spelling, I chose thinking. But I didn't have to choose.

But you don’t know if he would have been better off in a traditional school with teachers who can better guide his inquiries. Maybe that was part of the progressive school. But no matter how smart and gifted a kid is, I don’t think just letting them teach themselves is at all sensible. Kids like that should be getting a ton of content served to them and start learning the research and writing skills that will enable them to enter into a profession. Otherwise what you just have the kid randomly reading books. Which maybe is what you want for your kid, but I think a lot of us envision something more guided and rigorous. Because especially if you are PAYING for this, you should expect that your child will be challenged and instructed.

He got plenty of guidance. He's in high school now and doing great. None of us can know if our children would be doing even better with a different path, but as long as they are doing well, that's an absurd question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids attend/attended a progressive k-8. What has struck me is that year after year, kids from the k-8 have risen to the top of their high schools. Not every kid, of course. But frequently and regularly, which to me speaks to the progressive model. Otherwise, the k8 had a freakish amount of bright kids. They have become valedictorians (where measures), presidential scholars, etc. And this is from a small school. And their high schools range from progressive to traditional to public magnet.

But I agree. It doesn’t work for everyone, but I also argue that it can be an effective and successful model.

Maybe because bright kids do well in any number of settings. When kids aren't doing well, their parents often pull them out. The kids who stay through 8th are often very bright. It's them plus the kids who can't cope in a traditional setting and the kids who can't get in anywhere else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids attend/attended a progressive k-8. What has struck me is that year after year, kids from the k-8 have risen to the top of their high schools. Not every kid, of course. But frequently and regularly, which to me speaks to the progressive model. Otherwise, the k8 had a freakish amount of bright kids. They have become valedictorians (where measures), presidential scholars, etc. And this is from a small school. And their high schools range from progressive to traditional to public magnet.

But I agree. It doesn’t work for everyone, but I also argue that it can be an effective and successful model.

Maybe because bright kids do well in any number of settings. When kids aren't doing well, their parents often pull them out. The kids who stay through 8th are often very bright. It's them plus the kids who can't cope in a traditional setting and the kids who can't get in anywhere else.

Or maybe because progressive education works? The paragraph above suggests that progressive education doesn't work and the kids who succeeded are only those who are naturally bright.