Norwood v. Sidwell's Lower School

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It started when they implied that we would not get in, during the application process. They told everyone this kind of thing. They also seemed to brag about things that seemed frivilous. I heard about wonderful food and so on. I did not think we would get in, but we did, but by then, I was interested in Norwood. Norwood talked about nurturing more than Sidwell, as far as I can remember. I also liked the fact that Norwood has more variation in academic ability because of the sibling policy, which to me was more realistic.
BTW, Sidwell works very well for most people, and I could have made it work for us.

Don't you think leveling expectations when there is like a 10:1 applicant to space ratio is more appropriate than telling everyone that they will get in (or worse, waitlisting everyone on a phantom list)?

[Anonymous]

We were at Norwood K-8, now at a Big 3 for HS. When we applied K, the ed consultant we used (because we were new to town) said the big difference is that the cohort of really top kids at Norwood would be narrower. We lucked into a very strong class at Norwood, there, but from what we learned along the way this advice generally holds. Norwood does good things in a lot of areas, especially English and arts. It is weaker in sciences and foreign language.

We also learned along the way that while many families fall in love - absolutely love - with Norwood in lower school, by the time they reach middle school the close-nittedness becomes cliquey, the politics of the school become tiresome, and parents check out more (to a mroe normal level). The MS is probably the stronger component, though.

[Anonymous]

We were at Norwood K-8, now at a Big 3 for HS. When we applied K, the ed consultant we used (because we were new to town) said the big difference is that the cohort of really top kids at Norwood would be narrower. We lucked into a very strong class at Norwood, there, but from what we learned along the way this advice generally holds. Norwood does good things in a lot of areas, especially English and arts. It is weaker in sciences and foreign language.

We also learned along the way that while many families fall in love - absolutely love - with Norwood in lower school, by the time they reach middle school the close-nittedness becomes cliquey, the politics of the school become tiresome, and parents check out more (to a mroe normal level). The MS is probably the stronger component, though.

".....When we applied K, the ed consultant we used (because we were new to town)...."

Who cares the reason? Does this legitimize using an ed consultant for Kindergarten school admission? Does this make you feel better about the decison to use an ed consultant? I assure you it does not change the fact one iota.

[Anonymous]

Are you implying that the decision was illegitimate? Why are you picking on this poster?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It started when they implied that we would not get in, during the application process. They told everyone this kind of thing. They also seemed to brag about things that seemed frivilous. I heard about wonderful food and so on. I did not think we would get in, but we did, but by then, I was interested in Norwood. Norwood talked about nurturing more than Sidwell, as far as I can remember. I also liked the fact that Norwood has more variation in academic ability because of the sibling policy, which to me was more realistic.
BTW, Sidwell works very well for most people, and I could have made it work for us.

Don't you think leveling expectations when there is like a 10:1 applicant to space ratio is more appropriate than telling everyone that they will get in (or worse, waitlisting everyone on a phantom list)?

Perhaps.

[Anonymous]

Are you implying that the decision was illegitimate? Why are you picking on this poster?

Not in the least; but, these defensive rejoinders defy credulity.

[Anonymous]

There are cliques at Norwood, but it varies from year to year. There are some snobby people, but the social dynamics are changing to a more random bunch of people. The school is pulling more kids from a larger radius, thus even the wealthy are more diverse (and I am not reffering to race or ethnicity). So culturally we see many types, but not as much as Sidwell will see, but as I said, it will probably change...I think we have a good class.
I disagree with the pp about science and languages. The kids get a good exposure to Spanish in K, and it becomes very academic by 3rd grade. They also have Chinese and Arabic. The science is much much better than what you get in MCPS at the elementary level. Math is the only area that I think has been critciized by parents. I do not know what to say about Sidwell wrt academics.
Norwood's teachers really teach well. They do not take anything for granted. Even the kids who come in doing well, are carefully evaluated. They sort of assume resposiblity for dealing with every child. They do not encourage the red shirting, which to me is a plus. That is, they are not afraid of the challenge of educating a boy with and August b-day starting K at 5.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are cliques at Norwood, but it varies from year to year. There are some snobby people, but the social dynamics are changing to a more random bunch of people. The school is pulling more kids from a larger radius, thus even the wealthy are more diverse (and I am not reffering to race or ethnicity). So culturally we see many types, but not as much as Sidwell will see, but as I said, it will probably change...I think we have a good class.
I disagree with the pp about science and languages. The kids get a good exposure to Spanish in K, and it becomes very academic by 3rd grade. They also have Chinese and Arabic. The science is much much better than what you get in MCPS at the elementary level. Math is the only area that I think has been critciized by parents. I do not know what to say about Sidwell wrt academics.
Norwood's teachers really teach well. They do not take anything for granted. Even the kids who come in doing well, are carefully evaluated. They sort of assume resposiblity for dealing with every child. They do not encourage the red shirting, which to me is a plus. That is, they are not afraid of the challenge of educating a boy with and August b-day starting K at 5.

Sorry for typos. Sent from a teeny screen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are cliques at Norwood, but it varies from year to year. There are some snobby people, but the social dynamics are changing to a more random bunch of people. The school is pulling more kids from a larger radius, thus even the wealthy are more diverse (and I am not reffering to race or ethnicity). So culturally we see many types, but not as much as Sidwell will see, but as I said, it will probably change...I think we have a good class.
I disagree with the pp about science and languages. The kids get a good exposure to Spanish in K, and it becomes very academic by 3rd grade. They also have Chinese and Arabic. The science is much much better than what you get in MCPS at the elementary level. Math is the only area that I think has been critciized by parents. I do not know what to say about Sidwell wrt academics.
Norwood's teachers really teach well. They do not take anything for granted. Even the kids who come in doing well, are carefully evaluated. They sort of assume resposiblity for dealing with every child. They do not encourage the red shirting, which to me is a plus. That is, they are not afraid of the challenge of educating a boy with and August b-day starting K at 5.

OP here. Thanks for the good honest feedback regarding Norwood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It started when they implied that we would not get in, during the application process. They told everyone this kind of thing. They also seemed to brag about things that seemed frivilous. I heard about wonderful food and so on. I did not think we would get in, but we did, but by then, I was interested in Norwood. Norwood talked about nurturing more than Sidwell, as far as I can remember. I also liked the fact that Norwood has more variation in academic ability because of the sibling policy, which to me was more realistic.
BTW, Sidwell works very well for most people, and I could have made it work for us.

Don't you think leveling expectations when there is like a 10:1 applicant to space ratio is more appropriate than telling everyone that they will get in (or worse, waitlisting everyone on a phantom list)?

I tend to agree. Sidwell receives an extraordinary amount of applications and has an acceptance rate of 15%. Since 85% of their applicants get rejected, they just want people to have realistic expectations from the beginning that the odds are that you WON'T get in--because it's true! I think that's better than offering people false hope and then having to deal with the fallout later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Are you implying that the decision was illegitimate? Why are you picking on this poster?

Not in the least; but, these defensive rejoinders defy credulity.

Actually, I was trying to avoid raising the hackles of posters who fasten onto things like hiring and ed consultant to divert (in a nasty fastion) the conversation away from the point of the posting (which was to pass on what someone with a broad view of the process had to say, i.e., the consultant). But since you find it necessary to add to your nastiness with overblown phrases like "defy credulity" (which makes little sense in this context), maybe it is futile.

[Anonymous]

PP, I would ignore the snarky remarks. If you wanted to hire an educational consultant fine--many of us would do the same, if we had the resources. I, for one, appreciate your feedback about Norwood. Since so many consider Sidwell to be the Holy Grail, it's nice to get positive feedback on other good schools.

[Anonymous]

Our kids are in the upper and middle schools at Sidwell, and we're quite pleased overall. By the same token, both kids have friends who are either current students at Norwood or who went to Norwood; their parents report that they like the school and feel their children were well-prepared for high school. So, as some PPs have said, you can't go wrong here; if you have the opportunity to choose between the two, you can be confident in making a decision based on your gut feeling of where your child will be happiest. Additionally, the poster who noted that there are mirror-image advantages to the choice between a K-12 school (you won't have to apply again for high school) or a K-8 school (you can choose from a blank canvas where you're child would like to go to high school) is correct. Frankly, we chose Sidwell in part because we were so sick of the whole admissions game and never wanted to go through it again. Finally, with regard to the admissions process, I will say that I am dismayed, but not surprised, by the posters who commented on the sourpuss attitude surrounding the Sidwell LS admissions process. That was our experience 10 years ago, and I'm sorry to hear that it still feels that way to prospective parents. I can only say that I hope you won't let it get in the way of making the right choice for your child -- whichever school that is.

[Anonymous]

PP, I would ignore the snarky remarks. If you wanted to hire an educational consultant fine--many of us would do the same, if we had the resources. I, for one, appreciate your feedback about Norwood. Since so many consider Sidwell to be the Holy Grail, it's nice to get positive feedback on other good schools.

The average family in this country does not hire an educational consultant to help place their children in kindergarten/primary school (with "no prep" for WPSSI entrance tests).

[Anonymous]

So what???? The average family in the US doesn't send their kid to private school either. If someone can afford it, what business is it of anyone else's??