Top private (Sidwell, GDS) versus top public (JKLM) for early years: what are the differences?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If money is not an impediment, you go with the top private school every time. But whether money is an impediment depends on each family's finances.

I think of it as analogous to picking a car to drive. My trusty Hyundai can get me to the same places an $80,000 Audi might get me. The Audi will be more comfortable on my tush, will have more safety features, will have a better sound system for my music, will probably get me where I'm going faster, will make me generally happier. If I can afford the extra cost, I'll take the Audi every time. But since I don't have that kind of money lying around, I stick with my Hyundai and stare jealously at Audi drivers.

Interesting analogy. I drive a $20k Hyundai and wouldn't be caught dead in an $80,000 car because I would find it a total violation of my values. You could say the same for private school.

+1. Completely agree.

Does that include college/university as well?

Shhh, don't try too hard to unpack those "values." Never know what you might find in there.

I think the calculus is very, very different for college/university.

If you mean, do I think Harvard undergrad is worth paying $60k for? No, not for my kid.

I might consider paying that much for a small liberal arts college, though, which I think generally provides an appreciably better undergraduate educational experience than Harvard or its ilk, or than a large public university. At the same time, I am cognizant that if my child could get into, say, Williams, he could also get a substantial merit scholarship at another, lower-ranked SLAC, and I am not anywhere near convinced that Williams provides a better education than any of the other SLACs that USNWR ranks between 20-40. So, would I pay $60k for Williams? No. Would I send my kid to a SLAC over a large public university? Yes, even if that SLAC were private.

Do I think Harvard undergrad is worth it for a kid from a low-income family? Yes, I think this can make a difference for a kid from a low-income family, and of course Harvard (or Williams, for that matter, which also I believe pledges to meet 100% of need) is likely to be cheaper than public for such a kid.

Do I think a grad degree from Harvard is worth paying for? If you want to be in finance or law, absolutely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The prior post has no point.

prior poster is commenting on personal knowledge of present environment at NCS, and making fun of all the pps who say that DC private school graduates should not drop any names to provide context

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If money is not an impediment, you go with the top private school every time. But whether money is an impediment depends on each family's finances.

I think of it as analogous to picking a car to drive. My trusty Hyundai can get me to the same places an $80,000 Audi might get me. The Audi will be more comfortable on my tush, will have more safety features, will have a better sound system for my music, will probably get me where I'm going faster, will make me generally happier. If I can afford the extra cost, I'll take the Audi every time. But since I don't have that kind of money lying around, I stick with my Hyundai and stare jealously at Audi drivers.

Interesting analogy. I drive a $20k Hyundai and wouldn't be caught dead in an $80,000 car because I would find it a total violation of my values. You could say the same for private school.

+1. Completely agree.

That's fine. If it's against your core values to pay money to improve your child's education, it's certainly your choice not to pay any extra, and it makes this a simple decision for you. I suppose it also means you would not pay extra for tutoring, for extra language instruction, or (taken to an extreme) maybe even to live in a better school district. I'd be very curious to hear where the exact contours of your values apply with regard to spending money for things that benefit you.

For those of us who are willing to spend our money to obtain things we value -- the vast majority of people -- this is a more complex analysis.

It's against my core values not to support public education. That's something I value very much, a greater good I am willing to invest in.

You can support it and not neccesarily enrolling your child in a public school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about "international" diversity? Is my understanding that Sidwell, notably WIS, GDS and STA have a lot of international students.

JKLMs do as well. We have a tremendous number on international families at all schools in the area.

Murch has students from 40 +/- countries. This is a very international city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about "international" diversity? Is my understanding that Sidwell, notably WIS, GDS and STA have a lot of international students.

JKLMs do as well. We have a tremendous number on international families at all schools in the area.

Murch has students from 40 +/- countries. This is a very international city.

it definitely is the city, and is one kind of diversity

for real economic diversity JKLM does not have it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is off the grid?

Btw another poster eschewing privates all the while detailing and name dropping as best possible her own list of privates.

the reason to name drop is that other posters who have decided to go public have been accused of "painting all privates with a broad brush" and not being familiar with any of them - not even bothering to investigate. I think the people who went to privates here and are not sending their kids help provide context when we know what schools they were/are familiar with.

Off the grid in my book is sending your kid to an EOTP school, where lots of kinds of learning is going on, not all academic, while the pressure cooker the poster above was referring to (choosing the challenging and presumably private school that she never had for her daughter), and admitting that she had made a mistake.

Pressure cookers tend to be the privates or even Wilson potentially, where you have the Janney kids duking it out for the Ivy League schools, and much less real diversity in the social circle no matter how "diverse" Wilson is on paper.

Just my opinion.

Generally, "off the grid" refers to moving far enough away from population centers that you need to supply your own power -- literally. In this context, as I indicated previously, I think it would mean moving to a community where there was a different attitude toward education than what I've seen in major US cities on both coasts. Is sending your high SES kid to an east of the park school in DC so s/he can avoid "duking it out" with other high SES kids from your neighborhood (in either public or private school), going "off the grid" or just playing the same game on a field where high SES provides more of a competitive advantage? I think that there are pros and cons to each option -- Wilson or Walls, other DC public schools (including charters), local private schools -- but none of these choices are off the grid. They're different niches in the same ecosystem. And these kinds of choices are HS/MS decisions for people who have chosen to live in affluent neighborhoods in DC. They don't speak to the question of what's at stake in choosing between Janney/Key/Lafayette/Murch/Mann and Sidwell or GDS for elementary school.

As an aside, re pressure cookers -- ironically, the pressure cooker atmosphere to me involves the obsession with APs and acceleration that kicks in in HS here/now (sooner if you live in the burbs and your kid tests gifted). BASIS is self-consciously built on that model. Its pitch is you don't have to be smart or rich to take lots of APs (or take Algebra in 6th grade) -- you have to be disciplined and motivated and be given the resources. (And we have to be allowed to kick you out if you don't get with the program). For my kid, what was valuable about the private L/MS experience was breadth and depth and play and experimentation, which is a very different educational model. HS at the same school has been a decidedly mixed bag -- with the AP/acceleration model arguably eclipsing the other approach in the later years -- or maybe an attempt to do both in a way that's utterly unrealistic given time pressure and previously instilled standards about what it means to do something well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is off the grid?

Btw another poster eschewing privates all the while detailing and name dropping as best possible her own list of privates.

the reason to name drop is that other posters who have decided to go public have been accused of "painting all privates with a broad brush" and not being familiar with any of them - not even bothering to investigate. I think the people who went to privates here and are not sending their kids help provide context when we know what schools they were/are familiar with.

Off the grid in my book is sending your kid to an EOTP school, where lots of kinds of learning is going on, not all academic, while the pressure cooker the poster above was referring to (choosing the challenging and presumably private school that she never had for her daughter), and admitting that she had made a mistake.

Pressure cookers tend to be the privates or even Wilson potentially, where you have the Janney kids duking it out for the Ivy League schools, and much less real diversity in the social circle no matter how "diverse" Wilson is on paper.

Just my opinion.

Generally, "off the grid" refers to moving far enough away from population centers that you need to supply your own power -- literally. In this context, as I indicated previously, I think it would mean moving to a community where there was a different attitude toward education than what I've seen in major US cities on both coasts. Is sending your high SES kid to an east of the park school in DC so s/he can avoid "duking it out" with other high SES kids from your neighborhood (in either public or private school), going "off the grid" or just playing the same game on a field where high SES provides more of a competitive advantage? I think that there are pros and cons to each option -- Wilson or Walls, other DC public schools (including charters), local private schools -- but none of these choices are off the grid. They're different niches in the same ecosystem. And these kinds of choices are HS/MS decisions for people who have chosen to live in affluent neighborhoods in DC. They don't speak to the question of what's at stake in choosing between Janney/Key/Lafayette/Murch/Mann and Sidwell or GDS for elementary school.

As an aside, re pressure cookers -- ironically, the pressure cooker atmosphere to me involves the obsession with APs and acceleration that kicks in in HS here/now (sooner if you live in the burbs and your kid tests gifted). BASIS is self-consciously built on that model. Its pitch is you don't have to be smart or rich to take lots of APs (or take Algebra in 6th grade) -- you have to be disciplined and motivated and be given the resources. (And we have to be allowed to kick you out if you don't get with the program). For my kid, what was valuable about the private L/MS experience was breadth and depth and play and experimentation, which is a very different educational model. HS at the same school has been a decidedly mixed bag -- with the AP/acceleration model arguably eclipsing the other approach in the later years -- or maybe an attempt to do both in a way that's utterly unrealistic given time pressure and previously instilled standards about what it means to do something well.

PP, sorry, so what is "at stake" then? Please help (i.e. elaborate).

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

More/better/earlier arts, science, PE/outdoor time, foreign language. No standardized testing or grading, lots of writing, kid sets the level of challenge with small enough classes that teachers can provide real support. Continuity of "specials" teachers. More curricular freedom, which has lots of implications -- e.g. pace can change if a particular class needs more or less time on a unit, teachers are empowered and encouraged to be lifelong learners themselves, there's space for more ambitious projects. Also a fair amount of emphasis on and experiences designed to make kids comfortable presenting their ideas in public. A sense that education is about discovery and rather than transmission/reception/retention of what's already known.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good guess, LOL! Very close.

I, too, worry about happiness and, actually, about education -- in the sense of turning our kids onto the delights of reading, thinking, problem-solving, empathizing, figuring things out...

Not so much an issue (for the kids, at least) at the elementary school level -- though the instrumentalist of many parents is already apparent at that stage. But by HS, even (maybe especially) the kids who love to read and think are under tremendous pressure to just power through crushing workloads with no time to really reflect on what they're learning, much less to pursue interesting tangents. My own childhood and adolescence was filled with such opportunities and when I arrived at college I was like a kid in a candy store.

But had my HS education looked like the Big 3 experience today, I'd have been burnt out and/or needed a gap year

Please PP, tell me how I can give this to my kid. Go off the grid entirely?

I failed on that score. And, perhaps as a result, my answer is close to "go off the grid!"

In case it's any help, I think I know where I went wrong. I sought out for my DC the "challenging" school I never had. In retrospect, I see how much I benefited from the absence of externally-imposed challenges. Basically, I got/had to choose my own intellectual adventures, so to speak. And I lived in CA near a young university (a "first-rate second-rate school," according to one of my undergrad profs at what would no doubt be considered a first-rate first-rate school) which no doubt helped -- free to dirt-cheap access to libraries and classes, enough profs in the neighborhood for a good intellectually-inclined HS cohort and for encouragement/advice, but outnumbered enough by the dominant culture to be open to people from outside the U who shared their values/interests). But I know, because my parents and sibs still live in the area, that today my DC couldn't have the same childhood that I had there. What I don't know is whether those days are just gone or whether you could find the same environment in a different place today. I hope the latter, but am pretty sure it wouldn't be in or near a major US city on either coast (or Chicago for that matter).

I think you can go off the grid here by being in an EOTP charter, where not everyone graduating is going to even try to go Ivy or go home. I think you can use the money for travel and camps that are about subjects that interest them (and are NOT in DC). Girls are/will be Venturers, boys we want to become Eagle scouts which will help college applications and can be done anywhere. Having other communities helps kids keep their perspective - we also have church community. CW says colleges are looking for authentic lopsided applicants, that has been my experience as an alumni interviewer, so open the world wide enough and most kids become interested/passionate about something by high school (which is different than finding a "hook" for college). We have one kid who likes computers, one set on becoming a doctor who goes to crazy camps in the summer or takes unfortunately expensive college classes, another on the way to finding a passion, and one who is still too young but seems very much of a performer. Private would be easier with that one, but we have time to figure it out - maybe Ellington? Our kids are friends with the smart kids at their school, who do not live in the same areas or come from the same backgrounds. We have tons of books in our house, try to eat dinner as a family and talk. We get magazines that follow their interests. I think you can find that kind of cohort here for your kids, maybe with us wackadoos who have decided not to go private on financial aid, and to keep our kids internally motivated for as long as we can so they can have a shot at starting to figure out what they are interested. When I have a kid in 11th grade I may be singing a different tune, but we are fairly confident that our kids will get into decent colleges from where they are, even though they and their friends will definitely be the outliers in their graduating class, and we are very confident that they are getting a broader education by living in a wider world.

We did not like what we saw of the private school pressure cooker here, but could not move far because of our jobs, so we have tried to create an environment like what we had as kids. It is very hard. The computer gamer programmer has friends who have left but they still play (it helps that they are all obsessed with the same game and can play virtually with each other while skype allows them to see and talk at the same time on a server they created with my husband). There is no neighborhood where the younger kids can just wander off and come home for supper, but there are almost always kids in our house from school (the metro makes them fairly independent), and I don't really know what kind of "hanging out" they are doing but they are having fun. I think you can create an environment that fosters genuine intellectual curiosity, and if you are not at a pressure cooker your kids have more time to actively pursue interests and find a passion.

Time is an issue. It is hard for us to watch even our youngest have make trade offs because of homework we think excessive. We don't remember this. Although this crazy medical kid may keep more of us here for more of the summer this time, we usually spend the summers with a few week long camps (going to Goshen matters) and wandering, and so far it has worked out. We do have one kid who puts too much pressure on himself, but at least there is genuine intellectual inquiry there in addition to an obsession with getting high grades. The kid is wired that way but he is not contagious and can laugh at himself. None of them are going to try to play 3 varsity sports and do a ton of meaningless extra curriculars and then stay up all night doing homework. We feel secure that with good grades they will get into a college where they will get a good education, and are not focusing so much on rankings or names, and we are fairly sure that they will also feel like kids "in a candy store"). I think the reading and the talking is essential, and because of computers our kids can find out more about what interests them on their own, independently. They can also virtually "hang" with their friends and do,

We like their friends and none are going down a wrong road - we want them to make their own way with their friends, many of whom are now going in different directions in terms of interests, but the interests are there, and we never want our kids to feel that there is only one road... Because it is not true. We do not believe that going to Harvard is critical if you become well educated and are prepared academically so you can do well in college, although the one kid definitely wants Harvard Yale or Princeton. We hope to get most to come out of college debt free - would definitely prefer some merit scholarships to lesser universities because we did have too many kids. Have also considered separating at the critical time and paying out of state tuition senior year so UVA in state tuition is a possibility. We think we can save enough so if more than one kid wants to go to an Ivy where they cannot get merit scholarships, we would be ok. We will expect them to work over summers and such. We are fairly frugal - old cars, no I phones, no HBO, clothes etc. Easier in a school where most kids are not from wealthy families. Big fans of target, ebay auctions for computer tinkerers, high quality church sales WOTP, public libraries and pools. As "off the grid" as we can be in DC. We think Whitman and maybe even Wilson would also be pressure cookers.

Definitely off the track of the original question but off the grid is hard but possible, and we think it is important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More/better/earlier arts, science, PE/outdoor time, foreign language. No standardized testing or grading, lots of writing, kid sets the level of challenge with small enough classes that teachers can provide real support. Continuity of "specials" teachers. More curricular freedom, which has lots of implications -- e.g. pace can change if a particular class needs more or less time on a unit, teachers are empowered and encouraged to be lifelong learners themselves, there's space for more ambitious projects. Also a fair amount of emphasis on and experiences designed to make kids comfortable presenting their ideas in public. A sense that education is about discovery and rather than transmission/reception/retention of what's already known.

Bingo! We chose private over JKLM even though we have to make many sacrifices (vacations, new cars, etc.).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More/better/earlier arts, science, PE/outdoor time, foreign language. No standardized testing or grading, lots of writing, kid sets the level of challenge with small enough classes that teachers can provide real support. Continuity of "specials" teachers. More curricular freedom, which has lots of implications -- e.g. pace can change if a particular class needs more or less time on a unit, teachers are empowered and encouraged to be lifelong learners themselves, there's space for more ambitious projects. Also a fair amount of emphasis on and experiences designed to make kids comfortable presenting their ideas in public. A sense that education is about discovery and rather than transmission/reception/retention of what's already known.

Bingo! We chose private over JKLM even though we have to make many sacrifices (vacations, new cars, etc.).

good for you, but that does not give you moral superiority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good guess, LOL! Very close.

I, too, worry about happiness and, actually, about education -- in the sense of turning our kids onto the delights of reading, thinking, problem-solving, empathizing, figuring things out...

Not so much an issue (for the kids, at least) at the elementary school level -- though the instrumentalist of many parents is already apparent at that stage. But by HS, even (maybe especially) the kids who love to read and think are under tremendous pressure to just power through crushing workloads with no time to really reflect on what they're learning, much less to pursue interesting tangents. My own childhood and adolescence was filled with such opportunities and when I arrived at college I was like a kid in a candy store.

But had my HS education looked like the Big 3 experience today, I'd have been burnt out and/or needed a gap year

Please PP, tell me how I can give this to my kid. Go off the grid entirely?

I failed on that score. And, perhaps as a result, my answer is close to "go off the grid!"

In case it's any help, I think I know where I went wrong. I sought out for my DC the "challenging" school I never had. In retrospect, I see how much I benefited from the absence of externally-imposed challenges. Basically, I got/had to choose my own intellectual adventures, so to speak. And I lived in CA near a young university (a "first-rate second-rate school," according to one of my undergrad profs at what would no doubt be considered a first-rate first-rate school) which no doubt helped -- free to dirt-cheap access to libraries and classes, enough profs in the neighborhood for a good intellectually-inclined HS cohort and for encouragement/advice, but outnumbered enough by the dominant culture to be open to people from outside the U who shared their values/interests). But I know, because my parents and sibs still live in the area, that today my DC couldn't have the same childhood that I had there. What I don't know is whether those days are just gone or whether you could find the same environment in a different place today. I hope the latter, but am pretty sure it wouldn't be in or near a major US city on either coast (or Chicago for that matter).

I think you can go off the grid here by being in an EOTP charter, where not everyone graduating is going to even try to go Ivy or go home. I think you can use the money for travel and camps that are about subjects that interest them (and are NOT in DC). Girls are/will be Venturers, boys we want to become Eagle scouts which will help college applications and can be done anywhere. Having other communities helps kids keep their perspective - we also have church community. CW says colleges are looking for authentic lopsided applicants, that has been my experience as an alumni interviewer, so open the world wide enough and most kids become interested/passionate about something by high school (which is different than finding a "hook" for college). We have one kid who likes computers, one set on becoming a doctor who goes to crazy camps in the summer or takes unfortunately expensive college classes, another on the way to finding a passion, and one who is still too young but seems very much of a performer. Private would be easier with that one, but we have time to figure it out - maybe Ellington? Our kids are friends with the smart kids at their school, who do not live in the same areas or come from the same backgrounds. We have tons of books in our house, try to eat dinner as a family and talk. We get magazines that follow their interests. I think you can find that kind of cohort here for your kids, maybe with us wackadoos who have decided not to go private on financial aid, and to keep our kids internally motivated for as long as we can so they can have a shot at starting to figure out what they are interested. When I have a kid in 11th grade I may be singing a different tune, but we are fairly confident that our kids will get into decent colleges from where they are, even though they and their friends will definitely be the outliers in their graduating class, and we are very confident that they are getting a broader education by living in a wider world.

We did not like what we saw of the private school pressure cooker here, but could not move far because of our jobs, so we have tried to create an environment like what we had as kids. It is very hard. The computer gamer programmer has friends who have left but they still play (it helps that they are all obsessed with the same game and can play virtually with each other while skype allows them to see and talk at the same time on a server they created with my husband). There is no neighborhood where the younger kids can just wander off and come home for supper, but there are almost always kids in our house from school (the metro makes them fairly independent), and I don't really know what kind of "hanging out" they are doing but they are having fun. I think you can create an environment that fosters genuine intellectual curiosity, and if you are not at a pressure cooker your kids have more time to actively pursue interests and find a passion.

Time is an issue. It is hard for us to watch even our youngest have make trade offs because of homework we think excessive. We don't remember this. Although this crazy medical kid may keep more of us here for more of the summer this time, we usually spend the summers with a few week long camps (going to Goshen matters) and wandering, and so far it has worked out. We do have one kid who puts too much pressure on himself, but at least there is genuine intellectual inquiry there in addition to an obsession with getting high grades. The kid is wired that way but he is not contagious and can laugh at himself. None of them are going to try to play 3 varsity sports and do a ton of meaningless extra curriculars and then stay up all night doing homework. We feel secure that with good grades they will get into a college where they will get a good education, and are not focusing so much on rankings or names, and we are fairly sure that they will also feel like kids "in a candy store"). I think the reading and the talking is essential, and because of computers our kids can find out more about what interests them on their own, independently. They can also virtually "hang" with their friends and do,

We like their friends and none are going down a wrong road - we want them to make their own way with their friends, many of whom are now going in different directions in terms of interests, but the interests are there, and we never want our kids to feel that there is only one road... Because it is not true. We do not believe that going to Harvard is critical if you become well educated and are prepared academically so you can do well in college, although the one kid definitely wants Harvard Yale or Princeton. We hope to get most to come out of college debt free - would definitely prefer some merit scholarships to lesser universities because we did have too many kids. Have also considered separating at the critical time and paying out of state tuition senior year so UVA in state tuition is a possibility. We think we can save enough so if more than one kid wants to go to an Ivy where they cannot get merit scholarships, we would be ok. We will expect them to work over summers and such. We are fairly frugal - old cars, no I phones, no HBO, clothes etc. Easier in a school where most kids are not from wealthy families. Big fans of target, ebay auctions for computer tinkerers, high quality church sales WOTP, public libraries and pools. As "off the grid" as we can be in DC. We think Whitman and maybe even Wilson would also be pressure cookers.

Definitely off the track of the original question but off the grid is hard but possible, and we think it is important.

I don't personally believe that having one kid that goes to expensive summer med school prep courses and one kid who online games with kids who moved away (presumably to better school districts) really counts towards what others might see as "off the grid". I don't buy it. You are not "off the grid".

You want it both ways. Listing how you don't care about status in excruciating detail, and then bragging "the one kid wants HYP, what can I do." get over yourself PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More/better/earlier arts, science, PE/outdoor time, foreign language. No standardized testing or grading, lots of writing, kid sets the level of challenge with small enough classes that teachers can provide real support. Continuity of "specials" teachers. More curricular freedom, which has lots of implications -- e.g. pace can change if a particular class needs more or less time on a unit, teachers are empowered and encouraged to be lifelong learners themselves, there's space for more ambitious projects. Also a fair amount of emphasis on and experiences designed to make kids comfortable presenting their ideas in public. A sense that education is about discovery and rather than transmission/reception/retention of what's already known.

Bingo! We chose private over JKLM even though we have to make many sacrifices (vacations, new cars, etc.).

good for you, but that does not give you moral superiority.

I don't think she claimed it did. I read her comment as indicating that she made the choice she did based on educational issues rather than because she has more money than brains or because she was hoping to impress people at the country club or to hang out with people who carried the right kind of handbags (which have been the sort of concerns that posters critical of private schools have attributed to parents who chose not to send their kids to their neighborhood DCPS school).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More/better/earlier arts, science, PE/outdoor time, foreign language. No standardized testing or grading, lots of writing, kid sets the level of challenge with small enough classes that teachers can provide real support. Continuity of "specials" teachers. More curricular freedom, which has lots of implications -- e.g. pace can change if a particular class needs more or less time on a unit, teachers are empowered and encouraged to be lifelong learners themselves, there's space for more ambitious projects. Also a fair amount of emphasis on and experiences designed to make kids comfortable presenting their ideas in public. A sense that education is about discovery and rather than transmission/reception/retention of what's already known.

I think it's possible to get a similar experience at some charters. I think most of the "HRCS" talked about on DCUM fit this description. I am not that familiar with JKLMs, but I think they also have some autonomy from DCPS curriculum.

Yes, there is standardized testing in public schools, but not until 3rd grade. Not all schools make a big deal out of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More/better/earlier arts, science, PE/outdoor time, foreign language. No standardized testing or grading, lots of writing, kid sets the level of challenge with small enough classes that teachers can provide real support. Continuity of "specials" teachers. More curricular freedom, which has lots of implications -- e.g. pace can change if a particular class needs more or less time on a unit, teachers are empowered and encouraged to be lifelong learners themselves, there's space for more ambitious projects. Also a fair amount of emphasis on and experiences designed to make kids comfortable presenting their ideas in public. A sense that education is about discovery and rather than transmission/reception/retention of what's already known.

I think it's possible to get a similar experience at some charters. I think most of the "HRCS" talked about on DCUM fit this description. I am not that familiar with JKLMs, but I think they also have some autonomy from DCPS curriculum.

Yes, there is standardized testing in public schools, but not until 3rd grade. Not all schools make a big deal out of it.

you also have to lottery into a charter and it needs to be a reasonable commute to your place of work. not possible for many.