Forum Index
»
Private & Independent Schools
Which is more important -- academics or social/emotional development?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Yes, ideally one wants both. BUT.
My child's school does a really wonderful job creating a warm, supportive learning environment. It has meaningful diversity among students and staff. Children love school ... just a wonderful place to be. The academics, however, are okay but not stellar. Not as good as the public GT for sure and maybe not even as strong as regular publics in many cases. The kids seem to go on to good schools and reports back show they have been successful ... but I'm guessing they really have to scramble that first year of high school to get their writing and content knowledge up to par. Math does not seem to be an issue. So I battle with myself between having a child who delights in school versus one who is less happy but being better prepared. I didn't care much for school as a child, so I have always erred towards the "happiness/joy" side of things ... childhood is so fleeting. But the lack of academic rigor obviously makes me very nervous .... I welcome others' thoughts on the matter. Thanks. |
Anonymous
|
I wonder if our kids are at the same school; I have had the same thoughts.
My child is only in 2nd grade, so we're not too deep into this. For the time being, I am siding on the joy-enthusiasm end of the spectrum -- in a hypothetical where I can choose ONLY one. I know that my kids have their entire academic and then work lives to be beaten down by stupid vocab quizzes and pointless staff meetings. I want them to love their "work" for as long as possible. |
Anonymous
|
How do you measure the quality of the academics? (there is no right answer; this is up for debate by professionals.)
Personally, I worry less about learning facts (you can usually look them up) and more about developing a love of learning and learning HOW to learn. I would be somewhat concerned about a weak writing program, because I think learning to communicate your ideas clearly is paramount. I also think kids should be challenged intellectually and at their own pace. I think if the school fosters a love of learning, you might be better off there, as your child might be more apt to extend his learning beyond classroom time. A kid in a less engaging, but more rigorous environment might not want to do anything beyond the classroom requirements because there is no love of learning. How old is your child? If your DC is in lower school, you might wish to re-evaluate the fit for middle school. |
Anonymous
| We are in the same situation and we will be moving DC for Middle School. I think for LS it is okay but it is very important to use Middle School to understand how to manage work, and to have very good reading & writing skills. |
Anonymous
| Make sure whatever middle school you choose is very supportive in the social/emotional area. The K-8 school that DC went to is known as one of those "warm and fuzzy" places. The middle school was very supportive of the students, and encouraged and inspired them to develop confidence in themselves. This has led to great success in HS, both academically and socially. |
Anonymous
| I expect academic rigor, stimulation and challenge from schools and hope the home is nurturing, supportive and the main driver for social and emotional development. If I get both at school -- a bonus. "Touchy feely schools" without a track record of academic rigor and appropriate stimulation and challenge for youngsters are not my cup of tea. |
Anonymous
| We've got the same situation at our school - great place to be a little kid but not academically rigorous. We do extra tutoring. |
Anonymous
To be fair, in the District and close-in suburbs, I don't think there are too many of these. Put another way, I can't think of any K-3/6/8 schools (non-parochial) that don't send their graduates onto programs we all agree are rigorous. So while I don't know anything specific about the National Presbyterian math curriculum, for example, I do know plenty of their grads that were offered spots in competitive high schools that demand strong candidates. So I have to assume some learning goes on there. |
Anonymous
|
OP here. Thanks for everyone's input ... gives me some interesting ideas to ponder.
Outside tutoring might indeed be a good idea and I definitely plan to consider middle school very carefully. For now, I guess that I'm hoping that "loves school" will result in "loves learning" ... not sure we're quite there yet, but "hates school" would definitely be a bad sign. |
Anonymous
| Another vote for staying where you are. We moved our kids from a school like the one you describe, b/c I couldn't see paying all that money for academics that didn't seem superior to public in terms of the content being taught. We moved to a more traditional school that definitely bumped up the learning curve in the lower school, but now that we are in middle school with high school level texts and lots and lots of homework, I'm hearing a lot of "I hate school." I am hoping a love of learning is salvageable. |
Anonymous
|
OP, you said the tradeoff might be a happier child versus one who is "better prepared." But better prepared for what? I think a happier childhood equals better preparedness for a genuinely successful life.
Ideally the two do coexist in the same school: A challenging but developmentally appropriate academic curriculum taught using child-centered methods, layered upon a sound social/emotional curriculum. But if it's absolutely a dichotomous thing, I vote for the social/emotional curriculum taking first place for young children. It's the basis for everything children learn, academically and otherwise. It can provide a foundation not only for academic success, but also for happiness in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. There are a number of well-written books by developmental psychologists that speak to this. If my young child delights in school, eagerly pursues learning, and is genuinely friendly with every child in the classroom, I feel the money we're spending on private school is well worth it. That seems much more likely to happen if a strong social/emotional curriculum underpins everything that takes place in the classroom, and if it is the first priority during the early childhood years. |
Anonymous
|
I think when kids are young, you can forego academic rigor for love of learning - I did that, but then had to supplement the academics with tutoring then on my own when I couldn't afford it anymore. As my kid got older, we moved and I think this was a good decision because it's can be harder on the child to move into a more rigorous program as the kids get older - so there was more time to transition.
To the PP whose child hates school now, some of that might be that the kids are at a different stage. My kid tells me that there were kids at the touchy feely school who said they hated school all the time, so lack of academic rigor doesn't always translate into a love of school or learning. |
Anonymous
| So what are considered the "touchy, feely" schools in the DC area? |
Anonymous
| Good question. My radar is set for academically rigorous schools and not touchy feely atmospheres. I've never wasted any time cataloguing schools on this metric once it's clear the school is not academically rigorous or provides appropriate avenues for high performing and achieving pupils seeking more intellectual and academic challenge and rigor. |
Anonymous
How many 2nd graders are really "seeking more intellectual and academic challenge and rigor? Or do you mean that is what you are looking for. My DCs went to a k-8 that I happen to think provided both social/emotional development and strong academics despite its touchy feeliness. Both are doing very well in high school and should go on to good colleges. |