Private Schools Should Do Better

[Anonymous]

I plan to send my ds to private school this fall because I believe he will get a better education than he would in public school...a little better.

I must say that I am a bit disappointed with most of the area private schools on an academic and administrative level.

Some seem to function like corporations asking the highest tuition that they can get, instead of like organizations that bring in "enough" money to keep operations going. Further, what is done with that money is interesting.

Quality, it seems, is seldom examined by parents who send their kids to great schools like Sidwell, GDS, Norwood, and Landon. I say this because when I called these schools to inquire about curricula, they acted as if they had never been asked detailed questions before. I often sensed defensiveness and some arrogance on the part of the staff. I once heard a staff member say, "Well, our kids do well with any approach, it doesn't matter what books we use." Not true, it does matter. All kids benefit from better pedagogy and curricula that have been evidence based with good outcomes. That staff member's statement sounded like , we have smart well behaved kids here so we can relax and take it easy.

Strong math and reading programs coupled with small class size, experienced staff, and a positive nurturing atmosphere are all any young primary student needs to learn, regardless of IQ. A good academic environment should give a child the tools he/she needs to move with confidence in the future.

Reading programs in all schools (public and private) seem to be improving, but instructors don't seem to take advantage of the new research that pushes phonics first. That (renewed) approach is being used widely in Britain, and has been proven to be extremely successful. It involves rapid early instruction of phonics only.
The approach that is still used in many schools mixes reading by sight early on, then decoding. This can leave some children frustrated, believing themselves to be dyslexic, and so on. Sound early reading skills make every other subject simpler. I believe that good readers can become great readers with the best programs.

Most of our math curricula are terribly flawed. The spiral approach used by Everyday Math is too broad and not deep enough, as many researchers have pointed out. Eventually University of Chicago will admit that their curriculum is poor, but in the mean time our kids are subjected to it. This year, a Presidential Blue Ribbon Panel cautioned against the use of any curriculum that spirals. Almost all of the private schools in the area are using EDM or Investigations. I understand that a change would be expensive, but aren't tuition dollars supposed to cover things like new curricula?

The issue of class size came up in another post (not mine). Small class size has been shown to be very effective in the primary years. It has been shown that brighter children actually benefit more from smaller classes. The schools think that by presenting a low student teacher ratio, that parents will be satisfied. Well, some of us aren't impressed. The kids don't get much benefit by switching from this teacher to that one for each subject in kindergarten. Those extra teachers that they talk about are not always with the kids. They are off planning lessons, so your child is often in groups of 18-26 for most of the day. That's not what a 5 year old needs. They need defined partitions a designated teacher who has that small group all day.

On a positive note, most private schools have experienced staff, and are extremely nurturing. Very few parents would tolerate any of the negative techniques that were used in previous generations.

I should expect that these great (very) expensive area schools to be ahead of it all, with the best up to date curricula, and active well informed staff. Some of the staff have admitted that they are aware of the inadequacies, but the reuluctance to implement change seems to be a result of complacency and little scrutiny by parents. One teacher at a local school said that parents pay the money and just assume that all is well.

We should keep in mind that a child with a WPPSI in the 98%ile, would still benefit from improvements. We are buying a "good" education at these schools, but what would be wrong with an "excellent" education?

[Anonymous]

Thank you for this very enlightening post.

We're starting at a private school with DS this fall too, and I am experiencing a real case of Buyer's Remorse, exactly for the reasons that you mentioned. The rational side of me still says that there is no kindergarten program on the planet that is worth $20,000 a year. Yet here we are, right in line for it, just like so many others. I have an enormous fear that this is all going to turn out to be a "King's New Clothes" story and that we are going to wake up one day and realize that we've been seriously hoodwinked.

[Anonymous]

Oh, "Buyers Remorse" is perfectly said....I know I am whining, but I have the same feeling, consideirng a good friend of mine met with a neighbor as to why neighbor pulled DD out of a private school and put in public school...all the reasons I like about the public school is why neighbor pulled out.

Yes - I am whining, but the curricula came up and I feel like a tremendous bonehead for not being completely aware of the curricla of both in comparison...

I really hope DH and I did not jump without doing the best research possible.

aarrghh. at least we can always "pull out" if need be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

cautioned against the use of any curriculum that spirals.

Did you mean any math curriculum or a spiral curriculum in ANY subject? Don't all the schools discussed on this board have a spiral curriculum?

[Anonymous]

Sorry, PP-- can you re-phrase your post and give a bit more detail? I had a hard time understanding it.

To the OP-- very well stated. You have given this (on the fence) mom some things to think about. We have a bright 99% WPSSI for what it is worth, child, but I don't think he is overly gifted, may just be a good test taker. He is motivated, but typical for his age, and I fear that he may fall through the cracks in a public school or that the teaching to the test, rote work, etc. will take over and not provide a creative, love to learn atmosphere. As you sound like someone who has done a lot of research, would you care to comment on that aspect of public v. private? We are in Mont. Co (Bethesda) with a good elementary (7 locks) and Churchill as our HS. Thanks in advance.

[Anonymous]

Bravo!

I'm an educator at a top DC area private school and moving next year to another one. I've also visited a number of schools as a result of professional exchanges and other professional interests, and I've interviewed at a number of schools.

I think that much of what you say is so very true. Most of these schools are not engaging in what the education field refers to as "best practices." In many cases there is a broad-based ignorance of current educational, psychological, and cognitive research. In other cases a few schools are simply dismissive of anything that runs contrary to what they've been doing for 10, 20, or 50 years. I do not know of very many area teachers and administrators who are personally arrogant, but for some reason there is a tremendous institutional arrogance at many of the schools. It would be these were standard-setting, remarkable schools -- but they're not.

Area elementary schools are more likely to do a decent job with literacy than most other academic areas, but I find it difficult to swallow how many schools do not have an adequate phonics program in place in the younger grades or a comprehension strategy instruction program in place in the older ones. If I mention "text feature analysis," many area educators look at me cross-eyed. Far too many schools are also stuck using vocabulary workbooks as their primary means of vocabulary instruction where there's a rich base of research available that provides for more effective, more engaging alternatives.

I believe that you correctly note that there are definite problems with the Everyday Math (and Investigations) curriculum. Some students do fine with it, and there are some features of it that I quite like and which some research strongly supports (e.g. examining multiple algorithms and using quality manipulatives), but its spiral is far too broad. Unfortunately, I also think many of the traditional math curricula are just as problematic or even worse. America has been engaging in traditional math instruction for decades (and much of it still does), and we've certainly seen little to no improvement in international comparisons. There are some curricula which I think may have some promise (Growing with Mathematics and Math Trailblazers), and the new Think Math! curriculum looks like it might be worth examining carefully. But, truly, I have yet to see a solid all encompassing math curriculum mass-marketed in the US. (There are certainly some useful math curriculum materials -- e.g. Marilyn Burns substitution units and Contexts for Learning Mathematics.) With as much in the way of resources some of these schools have, one would think that they could create their own viable math curriculum. Many schools have done just that with their social studies and/or science curricula.

Perhaps most troubling to me is that starting usually in fourth grade (but sometimes even third) I see most schools heavily relying on tests as the primary means of motivating students to learn (or even just to read). Speaking of research, psychological research has shown again and again that using tests as a motivation tool results in less deep and less long-term learning. It also diminishes children's sense of autonomy, increases the likelihood of unhealthy anxiety, and impedes the development of intrinsic motivation. Couple this with totally developmentally inappropriate and even downright unhealthy amounts of homework, and I think you have a near-tragedy on your hands. Anecdotally, I've seen so many students who loved school and learning through second or third grade totally have that joy squashed by as early as fourth or fifth grade. And I always ask: To what end? Why are we doing this? What are we hoping to accomplish? It doesn't have to be that way to raise academically talented children. For example, I know a number of children who've gone through Burgundy Farms and been admitted into wonderful universities. (Burgundy, by the way, is one of the schools which, while not totally innocent of a focus on testing and too much homework, is much more reasonable than most -- and would be even more so if there was less parental pressure for homework and tests.)

In any case, I hope parents like you, PP, continue to speak up and make themselves heard. I find it unconscionable that schools are charging $20,000 to $30,000 for what really amounts to an education just slightly better than what they could have for free. There are a great number of families who make real sacrifices to put their children through private schools, and if nothing else that sacrifice should be honored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

cautioned against the use of any curriculum that spirals.

Did you mean any math curriculum or a spiral curriculum in ANY subject? Don't all the schools discussed on this board have a spiral curriculum?

Yes, math curriculum. And yes, many schools do use a spiral curriculum.

[Anonymous]

OP here, As far as math goes, the wheel does not need to be reinvented. The easy thing to do would be to look a t countries that have good outcomes and just copy them. That's why Singapore Math came into publication in the US.

[Anonymous]

PP, I am glad that you singled out Burgundy because we are sending our DD there this fall. Among other things, we were impressed that the school seemed to be less focused on the testing, etc. than many of the others.

Your comments are worrisome re: parents pushing the school toward a more traditional approach, however. We selected Burgundy because of its progressive education and fully support all that goes with it (including the belief that homework should be MEANINGFUL). I hope that the parents to which you refer are in the minority (and if not, we are going to be disappointed). It would sadden me to know that there is a school out there on the right path and that the parents are actually getting in the way of things.

[Anonymous]

21:56 There is nothing inherently wrong with traditional. The negative attitudes towards traditional have more to do with attitude rather than technique.
I don't know about Burgundy, but Green Acres relies heavily on sight reading, and Everyday Math. We ran away from that school.

[Anonymous]

I don't see Burgundy as becoming more test/homework-focused. For quite some time -- more as a concession to a small but vocabl number of parents than anything else -- done a bit more testing and homework than the faculty would otherwise like to do. I see this as a fairly static given, not a growing trend.

[Anonymous]

Oops... sorry for the above post. I guess I was typing too fast! In response to the post about traditional, I don't see traditional as inherently wrong. I was just noting that it hasn't done anything for us in terms of rising in international comparisons of math achievement. But I will note that "traditional" phonics programs (like the ones when I was a child) are notably different from the most recent, research-supported methods of phonics instruction. I understand wanting to run away from Everyday Math... unfortunately, there aren't many places to run to.

[Anonymous]

21:56 here. I don't see anything inherently wrong in traditional approaches either. We did, however, specifically select a school that did not use that approach because we believe our DD would really thrive in a truly progressive atmosphere.

I am glad to hear from 22:00 that in general Burgundy parents aren't mobilizing some kind of major push toward those very things that I believe hinder a child's educational experience and academic growth (boatloads of busywork; more and more meaningless tests). I got a little nervous reading the post, thinking that maybe the school was buckling under parental pressure and not staying true to its progressive roots. I am happy to hear that this is NOT the case! I am really excited about the possibility of our DD having her joy actually nurtured instead of squashed!

[Anonymous]

Singapore Math is certainly not the grand solution to the vexing math curriculum problem.

To start, our children likely live more over-stimulated and less disciplined lives than many of the children in Singapore. They might not respond as well to a vanilla, bare bones curriculum.

Second, while I respect the way Singapore Math examines concept in depth (I'm a huge fan of depth over breadth), the curriculum doesn't address all of the areas of math learning that we expect students to be proficient in.

Third, a vast number of Singapore children go to afterschool math enrichment programs like "Ho Math and Chess," and there is more instructional time in Sinagpore schools.

Fourth, most schools in Singapore have dedicated math teachers even at the primary elementary level. One problem with American schools that has been noted in the literature is elementary teachers' lack of comfort and/or competency with mathematics in general.

None of this devalues the elegance of Singapore Math, but it does call into question whether it would be as effective here as it is there. I think we can do better... especially with all the technology which is available to integrate into our mathematics instruction (and, no, I'm not talking about having kids use calculators to solve basic arithmetic problems).

[Anonymous]

OP, I agree with some of what pp said, but the Singapore curriculum was developed to be fool proof in many ways, and authors assumed that the teachers did NOT have a sound basis in math.
I just used Singapore as an example. What concerns me is that it could take so long for the publishers to come up with something good, we could waste another generation.
Also, most of my criticisms about schools has to do with them not being traditional enough. There seems to be a trend toward flighty, fuzzy unsubstantiated approaches that are worrisome.