How “activist” is Sheridan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
On the point that you want your child to come to their beliefs "naturally". There is no such thing as "natural." Your child will come to their beliefs based on a whole subset of factors. What you are saying is that you don't want your kid to be too disproportionately left-wing, which is totally your right as a parent, but your kid is still being influenced by a whole subset of society.

ALL OF THIS!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a recent graduate of Sheridan (within the past 5 years). The school focuses *heavily* on social justice and activism. I attended Sheridan from Kindergarten until Eighth grade, and even in that time, I noticed changes.

In History/Civics courses, we were not allowed to learn about American history. We learned about every other culture under the sun, but never America. I have no issue with a balanced curriculum that includes a heavy dose of traditionally overlooked cultures, but it was odd for America to be omitted. There was no mention of the American Revolution or the Colonies. There was no talk of America’s contributions to World History. The basics of our government were not covered until the end of 8th grade.

The same was true in the Art and Music departments. We never talked about European composers or Painters.

When I started, we were allowed to take either French or Spanish. Around Middle School, that changed. The school began only offering Spanish classes, purportedly in the pursuit of ‘diversity’. I believe this decision was reversed a year or two later. At the time, they spoke of how Spanish was the language of more traditionally underserved cultures around the world.

One year, our Shakespeare unit was struck from the curriculum in favor of one that I seem to recall was called “social justice”. We watched news coverage of recent events and were lectured on the significance.

Those are just a few concrete examples.

I wanted to also mention the less concrete aspect. At Sheridan, there is “one true opinion.” And you’re expected to buy into it, wholeheartedly. Students are taught debatable opinions as gospel. In an environment like that, intellectual exploration is impossible. Sheridan prides itself on encouraging deep critical thinking, but this practice really cuts against all of the flowery language they stick in brochures.

Parent of Sheridan kids who were there when you were there. There was no prohibition on learning US History and in fact both of my kids learned US History while there. Just a few events I remembered being covered include the battle of Lexington and Concord, the Trail of Tears, Slavery, Westward Expansion, the history and development of Washington, DC, and more. They also learned about the three branches of government, how a bill becomes a law, and voting. At their new schools their teachers have commented on how well informed they are and their ability to see things from different perspectives.

My kids sang and performed songs by Bob Dylan, Cole Porter, George Gershwin,, etc. They were introduced to the music of Charlie Parker. Artists examined included Van Gogh, Pollock, Calder, etc.

The switch to Spanish was made when my high school student was in 1st or 2nd grade and was not made for diversity reasons from what I recall. We were upset by the change and followed the issue closely. It was a switch that was made to focus on one language instead of two with the intent that students would develop more proficiency in a language by the time they graduated. My kids did well with the change and both were placed in more advanced Spanish classes in high school. Spanish was selected because more people speak it in the US.

I’m not saying everything about Sheridan was perfect, but I had to explain that what this grad said was not what my kids experienced when they were at Sheridan in the past 5 years.

Both of my kids read Shakespeare in high school and were able to understand it despite not having rad it in middle school. Both of them had a much easier time analyzing texts in high school from a diverse range of authors than many of their classmates who were encountering the idea of danger of a single story for the first time.

This sounds like a Sheridan parent, the PP wrote like a Sheridan Student but some of the examples read wrong. In art the children learn about artists from all over the world. My child has not started US history yet but we were told that it will be taught.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a recent graduate of Sheridan (within the past 5 years). The school focuses *heavily* on social justice and activism. I attended Sheridan from Kindergarten until Eighth grade, and even in that time, I noticed changes.

In History/Civics courses, we were not allowed to learn about American history. We learned about every other culture under the sun, but never America. I have no issue with a balanced curriculum that includes a heavy dose of traditionally overlooked cultures, but it was odd for America to be omitted. There was no mention of the American Revolution or the Colonies. There was no talk of America’s contributions to World History. The basics of our government were not covered until the end of 8th grade.

The same was true in the Art and Music departments. We never talked about European composers or Painters.

When I started, we were allowed to take either French or Spanish. Around Middle School, that changed. The school began only offering Spanish classes, purportedly in the pursuit of ‘diversity’. I believe this decision was reversed a year or two later. At the time, they spoke of how Spanish was the language of more traditionally underserved cultures around the world.

One year, our Shakespeare unit was struck from the curriculum in favor of one that I seem to recall was called “social justice”. We watched news coverage of recent events and were lectured on the significance.

Those are just a few concrete examples.

I wanted to also mention the less concrete aspect. At Sheridan, there is “one true opinion.” And you’re expected to buy into it, wholeheartedly. Students are taught debatable opinions as gospel. In an environment like that, intellectual exploration is impossible. Sheridan prides itself on encouraging deep critical thinking, but this practice really cuts against all of the flowery language they stick in brochures.

Parent of Sheridan kids who were there when you were there. There was no prohibition on learning US History and in fact both of my kids learned US History while there. Just a few events I remembered being covered include the battle of Lexington and Concord, the Trail of Tears, Slavery, Westward Expansion, the history and development of Washington, DC, and more. They also learned about the three branches of government, how a bill becomes a law, and voting. At their new schools their teachers have commented on how well informed they are and their ability to see things from different perspectives.

My kids sang and performed songs by Bob Dylan, Cole Porter, George Gershwin,, etc. They were introduced to the music of Charlie Parker. Artists examined included Van Gogh, Pollock, Calder, etc.

The switch to Spanish was made when my high school student was in 1st or 2nd grade and was not made for diversity reasons from what I recall. We were upset by the change and followed the issue closely. It was a switch that was made to focus on one language instead of two with the intent that students would develop more proficiency in a language by the time they graduated. My kids did well with the change and both were placed in more advanced Spanish classes in high school. Spanish was selected because more people speak it in the US.

I’m not saying everything about Sheridan was perfect, but I had to explain that what this grad said was not what my kids experienced when they were at Sheridan in the past 5 years.

Both of my kids read Shakespeare in high school and were able to understand it despite not having rad it in middle school. Both of them had a much easier time analyzing texts in high school from a diverse range of authors than many of their classmates who were encountering the idea of danger of a single story for the first time.

This sounds like a Sheridan parent, the PP wrote like a Sheridan Student but some of the examples read wrong. In art the children learn about artists from all over the world. My child has not started US history yet but we were told that it will be taught.

Another Sheridan parent here. In the early grades of lower school, art includes Kandinsky circles, Modrian grids as well as Aztec art, primitive art, etc. I n either second or third grade, kids learn about the three branches of government. I think they've had field trips to the Supreme Court in the past.

OP, I hope you can speak to people in person. Maybe ask the school how they balance the social justice within the overall curriculum. You can apply and then if accepted (when there's no risk), you could ask to speak to parents who have similars views to you. We are a moderate left family (not as woke as some but do appreciate social justice teaching) and are comfortable. There are times when things skew to the performative, but that is the case with many schools today. It is definitely a social justice school, but much of the time it's just school with PE and chocolate milk days and all that stuff. My advice is to make sure you can attend the presentations where the eighth graders speak as that will give you insight into the kind of students that Sheridan produces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a recent graduate of Sheridan (within the past 5 years). The school focuses *heavily* on social justice and activism. I attended Sheridan from Kindergarten until Eighth grade, and even in that time, I noticed changes.

In History/Civics courses, we were not allowed to learn about American history. We learned about every other culture under the sun, but never America. I have no issue with a balanced curriculum that includes a heavy dose of traditionally overlooked cultures, but it was odd for America to be omitted. There was no mention of the American Revolution or the Colonies. There was no talk of America’s contributions to World History. The basics of our government were not covered until the end of 8th grade.

The same was true in the Art and Music departments. We never talked about European composers or Painters.

When I started, we were allowed to take either French or Spanish. Around Middle School, that changed. The school began only offering Spanish classes, purportedly in the pursuit of ‘diversity’. I believe this decision was reversed a year or two later. At the time, they spoke of how Spanish was the language of more traditionally underserved cultures around the world.

One year, our Shakespeare unit was struck from the curriculum in favor of one that I seem to recall was called “social justice”. We watched news coverage of recent events and were lectured on the significance.

Those are just a few concrete examples.

I wanted to also mention the less concrete aspect. At Sheridan, there is “one true opinion.” And you’re expected to buy into it, wholeheartedly. Students are taught debatable opinions as gospel. In an environment like that, intellectual exploration is impossible. Sheridan prides itself on encouraging deep critical thinking, but this practice really cuts against all of the flowery language they stick in brochures.

Parent of Sheridan kids who were there when you were there. There was no prohibition on learning US History and in fact both of my kids learned US History while there. Just a few events I remembered being covered include the battle of Lexington and Concord, the Trail of Tears, Slavery, Westward Expansion, the history and development of Washington, DC, and more. They also learned about the three branches of government, how a bill becomes a law, and voting. At their new schools their teachers have commented on how well informed they are and their ability to see things from different perspectives.

My kids sang and performed songs by Bob Dylan, Cole Porter, George Gershwin,, etc. They were introduced to the music of Charlie Parker. Artists examined included Van Gogh, Pollock, Calder, etc.

The switch to Spanish was made when my high school student was in 1st or 2nd grade and was not made for diversity reasons from what I recall. We were upset by the change and followed the issue closely. It was a switch that was made to focus on one language instead of two with the intent that students would develop more proficiency in a language by the time they graduated. My kids did well with the change and both were placed in more advanced Spanish classes in high school. Spanish was selected because more people speak it in the US.

I’m not saying everything about Sheridan was perfect, but I had to explain that what this grad said was not what my kids experienced when they were at Sheridan in the past 5 years.

Both of my kids read Shakespeare in high school and were able to understand it despite not having rad it in middle school. Both of them had a much easier time analyzing texts in high school from a diverse range of authors than many of their classmates who were encountering the idea of danger of a single story for the first time.

This sounds like a Sheridan parent, the PP wrote like a Sheridan Student but some of the examples read wrong. In art the children learn about artists from all over the world. My child has not started US history yet but we were told that it will be taught.

NP here and a former Sheridan parent from the years the student PP was enrolled and graduated. I would make different word choices than the Student did ('allowed', 'prohibited') but the recounting of the facts absolutely tracks with our experience. You either learn Shakespeare, or you don't. The curriculum either includes US history in any given year, or it does not. The school musical is either 90% songs from Africa and South America vs. 10% from the US, or it's not.

The abrupt decision to jettison French, in retrospect, was probably driven by finances more than any other factor. HOWEVER, that move was presented to the parent body at the time as part of a larger, school-wide embracement of diversity and equity. [[ie, Spanish is overwhelmingly spoken by POC worldwide, whereas French is the language of white privileged people who order expensive wine from a sommelier. ]] I think that messaging is relevant to this thread.

As well, there were staffing changes related to the school's then-new equity/justice focus that were laudable in intent but ultimately had a negative effect on the curriculum and programming. Some very effective staff were terminated so that others could be hired into newly created positions. Some programs were slashed in order to assure funds for new programming. Our view of these sweeping decisions is not at all universal; clearly they were popular with other families, as evidenced by the fact that Sheridan doubled-down on these types of actions in subsequent years.

To be very clear, we're thrilled with the overall education Sheridan provided. Many of the veteran teachers pushed DCs to analyze and think critically and to write with evidence. But, the student PP's experience does align with our family's -- the tacit, erroneous assumption that the kids are all in agreement on how difficult, multi-faceted social and justice issues should be approached. For example, this poster was everywhere in the school at one point, sending the implicit message that this is a universal take on the subject. In fact, scholars in the field actually don't agree among themselves on these definitions.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/136820825@N05/26798396924

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But we don’t want an entire curriculum /school identity centered on social justice, particularly in Lower School.

This is hardly an accurate description of the GDS curriculum.

NP. This is exactly how they describe themselves in the orientation and interview process. We went through it last year. DS got in but we chose another because of better location. But it is spot on for how they project.

That may be how GDS projects publicly, but I can say based on my kid's firsthand experience that social justice is only a small part of the curriculum. More than most other schools? Sure. But the curriculum is nowhere near "centered" on social justice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a recent graduate of Sheridan (within the past 5 years). The school focuses *heavily* on social justice and activism. I attended Sheridan from Kindergarten until Eighth grade, and even in that time, I noticed changes.

In History/Civics courses, we were not allowed to learn about American history. We learned about every other culture under the sun, but never America. I have no issue with a balanced curriculum that includes a heavy dose of traditionally overlooked cultures, but it was odd for America to be omitted. There was no mention of the American Revolution or the Colonies. There was no talk of America’s contributions to World History. The basics of our government were not covered until the end of 8th grade.

The same was true in the Art and Music departments. We never talked about European composers or Painters.

When I started, we were allowed to take either French or Spanish. Around Middle School, that changed. The school began only offering Spanish classes, purportedly in the pursuit of ‘diversity’. I believe this decision was reversed a year or two later. At the time, they spoke of how Spanish was the language of more traditionally underserved cultures around the world.

One year, our Shakespeare unit was struck from the curriculum in favor of one that I seem to recall was called “social justice”. We watched news coverage of recent events and were lectured on the significance.

Those are just a few concrete examples.

I wanted to also mention the less concrete aspect. At Sheridan, there is “one true opinion.” And you’re expected to buy into it, wholeheartedly. Students are taught debatable opinions as gospel. In an environment like that, intellectual exploration is impossible. Sheridan prides itself on encouraging deep critical thinking, but this practice really cuts against all of the flowery language they stick in brochures.

Parent of Sheridan kids who were there when you were there. There was no prohibition on learning US History and in fact both of my kids learned US History while there. Just a few events I remembered being covered include the battle of Lexington and Concord, the Trail of Tears, Slavery, Westward Expansion, the history and development of Washington, DC, and more. They also learned about the three branches of government, how a bill becomes a law, and voting. At their new schools their teachers have commented on how well informed they are and their ability to see things from different perspectives.

My kids sang and performed songs by Bob Dylan, Cole Porter, George Gershwin,, etc. They were introduced to the music of Charlie Parker. Artists examined included Van Gogh, Pollock, Calder, etc.

The switch to Spanish was made when my high school student was in 1st or 2nd grade and was not made for diversity reasons from what I recall. We were upset by the change and followed the issue closely. It was a switch that was made to focus on one language instead of two with the intent that students would develop more proficiency in a language by the time they graduated. My kids did well with the change and both were placed in more advanced Spanish classes in high school. Spanish was selected because more people speak it in the US.

I’m not saying everything about Sheridan was perfect, but I had to explain that what this grad said was not what my kids experienced when they were at Sheridan in the past 5 years.

Both of my kids read Shakespeare in high school and were able to understand it despite not having rad it in middle school. Both of them had a much easier time analyzing texts in high school from a diverse range of authors than many of their classmates who were encountering the idea of danger of a single story for the first time.

This sounds like a Sheridan parent, the PP wrote like a Sheridan Student but some of the examples read wrong. In art the children learn about artists from all over the world. My child has not started US history yet but we were told that it will be taught.

NP here and a former Sheridan parent from the years the student PP was enrolled and graduated. I would make different word choices than the Student did ('allowed', 'prohibited') but the recounting of the facts absolutely tracks with our experience. You either learn Shakespeare, or you don't. The curriculum either includes US history in any given year, or it does not. The school musical is either 90% songs from Africa and South America vs. 10% from the US, or it's not.

The abrupt decision to jettison French, in retrospect, was probably driven by finances more than any other factor. HOWEVER, that move was presented to the parent body at the time as part of a larger, school-wide embracement of diversity and equity. [[ie, Spanish is overwhelmingly spoken by POC worldwide, whereas French is the language of white privileged people who order expensive wine from a sommelier. ]] I think that messaging is relevant to this thread.

As well, there were staffing changes related to the school's then-new equity/justice focus that were laudable in intent but ultimately had a negative effect on the curriculum and programming. Some very effective staff were terminated so that others could be hired into newly created positions. Some programs were slashed in order to assure funds for new programming. Our view of these sweeping decisions is not at all universal; clearly they were popular with other families, as evidenced by the fact that Sheridan doubled-down on these types of actions in subsequent years.

To be very clear, we're thrilled with the overall education Sheridan provided. Many of the veteran teachers pushed DCs to analyze and think critically and to write with evidence. But, the student PP's experience does align with our family's -- the tacit, erroneous assumption that the kids are all in agreement on how difficult, multi-faceted social and justice issues should be approached. For example, this poster was everywhere in the school at one point, sending the implicit message that this is a universal take on the subject. In fact, scholars in the field actually don't agree among themselves on these definitions.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/136820825@N05/26798396924

Maybe I wasn’t threatened by my white kids having an education that was more focused on diversity, equity and inclusion than some other parents. When we were at Sheridan during the same period there were plenty of parents there who were “nice” white people who felt that you had to teach the classics and not change much from the past. We’re at other schools now and we still encounter them. Some of these people were shocked by what happened to George Floyd and other white parents there (like myself) and their white kids were not as shocked. Why? Because they were not threatened or afraid to consider books beyond the traditional classics, read poems and essays by Langston Hughes and James Baldwin, consider the contradictions of our founding fathers proclaiming all men are created equal while enslaving Black Americans and prohibiting women from voting, etc. The truth is there is a range of families at Sheridan. There are Trump voters (not a ton but they are there), Libertarians, Jill Stein supporters, Progressives, and Dems. When we were there I knew of a few conservative Christian families that believed homosexuality is a sin. These people were on the faculty and staff too. If there was a litmus test or a doctrine, they wouldn’t have been there. If you are looking for your child to get a more traditional euro-centric education, I would suggest you look elsewhere. If you want an education where your child will read books by a diverse range of authors, including books that weren’t on your middle school reading list, take a look at Sheridan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a recent graduate of Sheridan (within the past 5 years). The school focuses *heavily* on social justice and activism. I attended Sheridan from Kindergarten until Eighth grade, and even in that time, I noticed changes.

In History/Civics courses, we were not allowed to learn about American history. We learned about every other culture under the sun, but never America. I have no issue with a balanced curriculum that includes a heavy dose of traditionally overlooked cultures, but it was odd for America to be omitted. There was no mention of the American Revolution or the Colonies. There was no talk of America’s contributions to World History. The basics of our government were not covered until the end of 8th grade.

The same was true in the Art and Music departments. We never talked about European composers or Painters.

When I started, we were allowed to take either French or Spanish. Around Middle School, that changed. The school began only offering Spanish classes, purportedly in the pursuit of ‘diversity’. I believe this decision was reversed a year or two later. At the time, they spoke of how Spanish was the language of more traditionally underserved cultures around the world.

One year, our Shakespeare unit was struck from the curriculum in favor of one that I seem to recall was called “social justice”. We watched news coverage of recent events and were lectured on the significance.

Those are just a few concrete examples.

I wanted to also mention the less concrete aspect. At Sheridan, there is “one true opinion.” And you’re expected to buy into it, wholeheartedly. Students are taught debatable opinions as gospel. In an environment like that, intellectual exploration is impossible. Sheridan prides itself on encouraging deep critical thinking, but this practice really cuts against all of the flowery language they stick in brochures.

Parent of Sheridan kids who were there when you were there. There was no prohibition on learning US History and in fact both of my kids learned US History while there. Just a few events I remembered being covered include the battle of Lexington and Concord, the Trail of Tears, Slavery, Westward Expansion, the history and development of Washington, DC, and more. They also learned about the three branches of government, how a bill becomes a law, and voting. At their new schools their teachers have commented on how well informed they are and their ability to see things from different perspectives.

My kids sang and performed songs by Bob Dylan, Cole Porter, George Gershwin,, etc. They were introduced to the music of Charlie Parker. Artists examined included Van Gogh, Pollock, Calder, etc.

The switch to Spanish was made when my high school student was in 1st or 2nd grade and was not made for diversity reasons from what I recall. We were upset by the change and followed the issue closely. It was a switch that was made to focus on one language instead of two with the intent that students would develop more proficiency in a language by the time they graduated. My kids did well with the change and both were placed in more advanced Spanish classes in high school. Spanish was selected because more people speak it in the US.

I’m not saying everything about Sheridan was perfect, but I had to explain that what this grad said was not what my kids experienced when they were at Sheridan in the past 5 years.

Both of my kids read Shakespeare in high school and were able to understand it despite not having rad it in middle school. Both of them had a much easier time analyzing texts in high school from a diverse range of authors than many of their classmates who were encountering the idea of danger of a single story for the first time.

This sounds like a Sheridan parent, the PP wrote like a Sheridan Student but some of the examples read wrong. In art the children learn about artists from all over the world. My child has not started US history yet but we were told that it will be taught.

NP here and a former Sheridan parent from the years the student PP was enrolled and graduated. I would make different word choices than the Student did ('allowed', 'prohibited') but the recounting of the facts absolutely tracks with our experience. You either learn Shakespeare, or you don't. The curriculum either includes US history in any given year, or it does not. The school musical is either 90% songs from Africa and South America vs. 10% from the US, or it's not.

The abrupt decision to jettison French, in retrospect, was probably driven by finances more than any other factor. HOWEVER, that move was presented to the parent body at the time as part of a larger, school-wide embracement of diversity and equity. [[ie, Spanish is overwhelmingly spoken by POC worldwide, whereas French is the language of white privileged people who order expensive wine from a sommelier. ]] I think that messaging is relevant to this thread.

As well, there were staffing changes related to the school's then-new equity/justice focus that were laudable in intent but ultimately had a negative effect on the curriculum and programming. Some very effective staff were terminated so that others could be hired into newly created positions. Some programs were slashed in order to assure funds for new programming. Our view of these sweeping decisions is not at all universal; clearly they were popular with other families, as evidenced by the fact that Sheridan doubled-down on these types of actions in subsequent years.

To be very clear, we're thrilled with the overall education Sheridan provided. Many of the veteran teachers pushed DCs to analyze and think critically and to write with evidence. But, the student PP's experience does align with our family's -- the tacit, erroneous assumption that the kids are all in agreement on how difficult, multi-faceted social and justice issues should be approached. For example, this poster was everywhere in the school at one point, sending the implicit message that this is a universal take on the subject. In fact, scholars in the field actually don't agree among themselves on these definitions.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/136820825@N05/26798396924

Did anyone ever point out that Haiti and Francophone Africa aren't exactly the bastions of white privilege as a counter argument to scrapping French??

[Anonymous]

OP here. Thanks so much for the feedback and tips, it’s been valuable to me. After thinking it over, I’m less concerned about curriculum (both because I think it’s interesting and valid to focus outside the canon and also because I can fill in any perceived gaps) at Sheridan, gds or elsewhere. The issue about groupthink and intolerance of dissenting (or even slightly different) opinions is what worries me most. Of course this is also the hardest element to ascertain from the outside.

It’s not that I’m concerned that DS will end up a left-wing radical. That would be fine if it’s truly where his heart, research and lived experience leads. It’s more that I worry he would end up with a set of “beliefs” that are not necessarily truly his own. And that if his own opinions differ from the latest progressive ideal, he will not want to deal with the fallout of expressing his real POV. (That’s the experience of the recent college grads I mentioned upthread)

Using myself as an example... I support full reproductive rights but have a “safe, legal and rare” perspective rather than #shoutyourabortion, which is more in vogue. I consider myself a feminist but despise porn and am grateful the tide is turning away from pure sex positivity. The details of what I believe don’t matter. I’m just curious if this kind of nuance is tolerated at so-called social justice schools.

When I went to school in the 80s (public), I truly had no idea what my teachers thought about political issues. My parents were dems but didn’t indoctrinate me on specific issues. My stance on death penalty, reparations, guns, trade…even the ethics of private schools (ha!) all changed as I grew up, met people, traveled, read, etc. My views have stabilized but aren’t in lockstep with any candidate or movement. I feel lucky to have had that freedom snd want the same for DS. Does that mean public school or somewhere like Sidwell/ maret that are more in the “middle”? And, yes, I understand that schools aren’t the only input for kids…but I know I really looked up to my teachers snd believe they are influential. Sorry for the saga!

[Anonymous]

OP, I’m not sure why you think K-8 schools are talking to students about abortion rights and porn.

Progressive education is not the same thing as a progressive political platform.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks so much for the feedback and tips, it’s been valuable to me. After thinking it over, I’m less concerned about curriculum (both because I think it’s interesting and valid to focus outside the canon and also because I can fill in any perceived gaps) at Sheridan, gds or elsewhere. The issue about groupthink and intolerance of dissenting (or even slightly different) opinions is what worries me most. Of course this is also the hardest element to ascertain from the outside.

It’s not that I’m concerned that DS will end up a left-wing radical. That would be fine if it’s truly where his heart, research and lived experience leads. It’s more that I worry he would end up with a set of “beliefs” that are not necessarily truly his own. And that if his own opinions differ from the latest progressive ideal, he will not want to deal with the fallout of expressing his real POV. (That’s the experience of the recent college grads I mentioned upthread)

Using myself as an example... I support full reproductive rights but have a “safe, legal and rare” perspective rather than #shoutyourabortion, which is more in vogue. I consider myself a feminist but despise porn and am grateful the tide is turning away from pure sex positivity. The details of what I believe don’t matter. I’m just curious if this kind of nuance is tolerated at so-called social justice schools.

When I went to school in the 80s (public), I truly had no idea what my teachers thought about political issues. My parents were dems but didn’t indoctrinate me on specific issues. My stance on death penalty, reparations, guns, trade…even the ethics of private schools (ha!) all changed as I grew up, met people, traveled, read, etc. My views have stabilized but aren’t in lockstep with any candidate or movement. I feel lucky to have had that freedom snd want the same for DS. Does that mean public school or somewhere like Sidwell/ maret that are more in the “middle”? And, yes, I understand that schools aren’t the only input for kids…but I know I really looked up to my teachers snd believe they are influential. Sorry for the saga!

I don’t know what to say OP, because I think you have cause for concern, and not just about the elementary years. These issues are front and center from elementary on up through the top colleges and universities. It is what it is. I think it is most important to enable and encourage your child to think deeply and critically. I posted earlier that I’m fine with my kids being conservative Republicans, Marxists, or anything in between. I just want them to figure out their views independently. I abhor this environment in which civil discourse is the exception rather than the rule.

[Anonymous]

Sounds like your best bet for an education designed to give your DC the mechanics of learning is public school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I’m not sure why you think K-8 schools are talking to students about abortion rights and porn.

It's because they're too busy teaching Critical Race Theory to five year-olds!!!

[Anonymous]

You will be banging your head against the wall if you send your child to Sheridan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks so much for the feedback and tips, it’s been valuable to me. After thinking it over, I’m less concerned about curriculum (both because I think it’s interesting and valid to focus outside the canon and also because I can fill in any perceived gaps) at Sheridan, gds or elsewhere. The issue about groupthink and intolerance of dissenting (or even slightly different) opinions is what worries me most. Of course this is also the hardest element to ascertain from the outside.

It’s not that I’m concerned that DS will end up a left-wing radical. That would be fine if it’s truly where his heart, research and lived experience leads. It’s more that I worry he would end up with a set of “beliefs” that are not necessarily truly his own. And that if his own opinions differ from the latest progressive ideal, he will not want to deal with the fallout of expressing his real POV. (That’s the experience of the recent college grads I mentioned upthread)

Using myself as an example... I support full reproductive rights but have a “safe, legal and rare” perspective rather than #shoutyourabortion, which is more in vogue. I consider myself a feminist but despise porn and am grateful the tide is turning away from pure sex positivity. The details of what I believe don’t matter. I’m just curious if this kind of nuance is tolerated at so-called social justice schools.

When I went to school in the 80s (public), I truly had no idea what my teachers thought about political issues. My parents were dems but didn’t indoctrinate me on specific issues. My stance on death penalty, reparations, guns, trade…even the ethics of private schools (ha!) all changed as I grew up, met people, traveled, read, etc. My views have stabilized but aren’t in lockstep with any candidate or movement. I feel lucky to have had that freedom snd want the same for DS. Does that mean public school or somewhere like Sidwell/ maret that are more in the “middle”? And, yes, I understand that schools aren’t the only input for kids…but I know I really looked up to my teachers snd believe they are influential. Sorry for the saga!

OP, you are not alone. I've been wondering about the same issues and share some of your concerns. Thank you for your question.

[Anonymous]

That’s Ok guys. At GdS you don’t learn civics or Us history in middle school. Instead you go camping for 3 days and draft a new constitution and ridicule the founding fathers and whole country for being unenlightened for todays times. Don’t bother with history or context of what they were dealing with.