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

[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.

No testing or grading in private? Are you talking about waldorf?Our private just had the wrap, and erbs are in a few weeks. And everything is graded.

I have children in KLM and private schools and there isn't much of a difference in what they learn. Just the frills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No testing or grading in private? Are you talking about waldorf?Our private just had the wrap, and erbs are in a few weeks. And everything is graded.

I have children in KLM and private schools and there isn't much of a difference in what they learn. Just the frills.

PP, why do you have a DS or DD in private then? Thanks for sharing!

[Anonymous]

Lots of people can't tell the difference. Whether that means there IS no difference is a separate question -- as is whether (or to whom or how) those differences matter.

Choose what works best for you from among the actually available options and recognize that others make different choice for reasons that may be as good than your own. And that all these choices involve imperfect options and decision making under uncertainty.

[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.

This^. If you're a DCPS or a charter school you HAVE to make a big deal about it - plus the number if kids = anyone is going to feel the pressure and I'm not convinced private alleviates that not can I afford it. I' the original "off the grid" inquirer and I'm more convinced every day that homeschooling is immune future.

[Anonymous]

Sorry - it's "in my future"

[Anonymous]

Sorry, but I do not understand the "off the grid" discussion. Can you please explain it to me in very simple terms?

[Anonymous]

it doesn't make anyone sense! one poster started off with why gunning for Ivies is bad, but stated clearly one child of hers want HYP. No insight.

[Anonymous]

It's about opting out of seemingly universal social structures or systems -- like the electrical power grid. Or schooling. Sometimes this is part of the simplicity movement (e.g. The Tiny House folks) which basically says we're slaves to all of our stuff and could live more meaningful and satisfying lives if we stopped focussing on material things. And in some cases, there's also a critique of/resistance to governmental or corporate power. Some solar power advocates, for example, love technology but don't want to be at the mercy of a monopolistic utility or to see centralized production/distribution of power as a source of vulnerability rather than strength/efficiency.

In either variant -- and the two can and do overlap -- there's a kind of counter-culturalism in the mix. Which is why, for me, the choice of an EOTP charter as a way to produce the lopsided resume that Ivy League admissions officers apparently crave isn't off-the-grid. Home-schooling certainly would be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's about opting out of seemingly universal social structures or systems -- like the electrical power grid. Or schooling. Sometimes this is part of the simplicity movement (e.g. The Tiny House folks) which basically says we're slaves to all of our stuff and could live more meaningful and satisfying lives if we stopped focussing on material things. And in some cases, there's also a critique of/resistance to governmental or corporate power. Some solar power advocates, for example, love technology but don't want to be at the mercy of a monopolistic utility or to see centralized production/distribution of power as a source of vulnerability rather than strength/efficiency.

In either variant -- and the two can and do overlap -- there's a kind of counter-culturalism in the mix. Which is why, for me, the choice of an EOTP charter as a way to produce the lopsided resume that Ivy League admissions officers apparently crave isn't off-the-grid. Home-schooling certainly would be.

Agree with this PP. Living in the desert or the woods and homeschooling is off the grid. Living in the nation's capital and going to a charter with the hopes that you kid goes to an ivy, not off the grid.

[Anonymous]

Just to be clear, the EOTP charter strategy may have other advantages -- I'm not saying it's bad or irrational. But it's certainly not "off the grid" in any meaningful way -- which may be the source of the confusion re what the phrase means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's about opting out of seemingly universal social structures or systems -- like the electrical power grid. Or schooling. Sometimes this is part of the simplicity movement (e.g. The Tiny House folks) which basically says we're slaves to all of our stuff and could live more meaningful and satisfying lives if we stopped focussing on material things. And in some cases, there's also a critique of/resistance to governmental or corporate power. Some solar power advocates, for example, love technology but don't want to be at the mercy of a monopolistic utility or to see centralized production/distribution of power as a source of vulnerability rather than strength/efficiency.

In either variant -- and the two can and do overlap -- there's a kind of counter-culturalism in the mix. Which is why, for me, the choice of an EOTP charter as a way to produce the lopsided resume that Ivy League admissions officers apparently crave isn't off-the-grid. Home-schooling certainly would be.

EOTP off the grid poster here: I meant off the "pressure cooker" grid - nothing more, because that was the topic/question/recommendation....

1) It is not the charter that produces the lopsided resume that we are told colleges prefer to well rounded do everything care about nothing, I was talking about being able to give your kids enough free time and space so they can explore interests, and if they are lucky, find something they are passionate about - so less academic rigor in the early years, while hanging out with a bunch of really smart kids from a wide variety of backgrounds = more time, and in an environment where there is diversity (not just on the surface but below as well) I think kids feel more free to explore a wider variety of options because they have broader horizons...

2) I am not using the EOTP school as a way to get anyone to the Ivy League, and I don't agree that the Ivy League or going to Harvard is worth the money. I said I had one kid wired that way - and that there was nothing I could do about it - maybe I am wrong, maybe I should try harder, but kid is older and set in his ways - he has created his own "pressure cooker" - he puts pressure on himself. We try to take it off, and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but this kid desperately wants to go to HYP and at a certain point you are criticizing your kid by continuing to argue that HYP is not worth it, makes no sense, and is an improper goal.... so we have backed off a bit. I would not want to have a family dynamic where the rest of the kids are making fun of him for trying so hard to get the best grades.... ultimately, what matters to him has to matter to us for him in particular, because otherwise we are not respecting his autonomy, his priorities, and this child is not doing drugs, he is just trying to be the one with the top grades in order to go to an Ivy League school.... isn't this the goal of "tiger moms" and many private school parents?

3) in terms of gaming and computer programming, the kid in question has, the way the international population does here, not moved to a better school system (well maybe), but he has returned to his own country which is far far away and in such a different time zone that the two had to be very creative to keep in touch and keep interacting the way they used to when said kid could come over and they could be in the same "universe" side by side on their computers. This is definitely not "off the grid" in the traditional sense but rather the way the term was used on this thread by the posters who originally used it.

So I meant off the "pressure cooker grid," as did the two prior posters, and that is the only grid we are trying to stay off of. I thought the use of the term as they used it was the easiest way to explain what we are trying to accomplish for our family - not getting into the Ivy League by going to an EOTP school, and not creating lopsided resumes because that is what we have been told colleges want - but trying to give our kids more space to think and more things to think about in terms of exploring what ultimately interests them.... trying to foster genuine intellectual curiosity which we think is easier to do off the "pressure cooker grid." I also agree with the poster who said that if they had to do what the kids at the big 3 are doing to try to get into college they would need a gap year. I don't want my kids to burn out especially academically - I want them to go to college and feel like they are "a kid in a candy store."

I have no idea if going to a school EOTP will give my kids a better shot at getting into college - we just hoped it would give them a healthier and wider perspective about the whole process, which I think is really important for their psychological well being. Thinking about and exploring where to go to college ought to be a fun process, and I hope it will be, for all but our one kid who has tunnel vision on this issue that we cannot seem to change........

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:it doesn't make anyone sense! one poster started off with why gunning for Ivies is bad, but stated clearly one child of hers want HYP. No insight.

Not sure why Ivies even come up when we are talking about "early years" which means elementary school. Ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's about opting out of seemingly universal social structures or systems -- like the electrical power grid. Or schooling. Sometimes this is part of the simplicity movement (e.g. The Tiny House folks) which basically says we're slaves to all of our stuff and could live more meaningful and satisfying lives if we stopped focussing on material things. And in some cases, there's also a critique of/resistance to governmental or corporate power. Some solar power advocates, for example, love technology but don't want to be at the mercy of a monopolistic utility or to see centralized production/distribution of power as a source of vulnerability rather than strength/efficiency.

In either variant -- and the two can and do overlap -- there's a kind of counter-culturalism in the mix. Which is why, for me, the choice of an EOTP charter as a way to produce the lopsided resume that Ivy League admissions officers apparently crave isn't off-the-grid. Home-schooling certainly would be.

EOTP off the grid poster here:

.... I meant off the "pressure cooker grid," as did the two prior posters, and that is the only grid we are trying to stay off of.

Then, as one of those two prior posters (kid in the candy store), I think you just misunderstood. I'm pretty sure the other PP -- the one who introduced the term into the discussion -- is the one who recently said it looks like home-schooling is in her future.

[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.

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.

For private you have to be able to afford it, your child needs to be accepted, and it needs to be a reasonable commute. So I would say that's even LESS possible for most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

For private you have to be able to afford it, your child needs to be accepted, and it needs to be a reasonable commute. So I would say that's even LESS possible for most.

Some of the HRCS are harder to get into than most private schools including schools like Sidwell if you look at the number of available seats.