Why are academics frowned upon?

[Anonymous]

OP,
When you know which schools have accepted your daughter, pursue this research. The school(s) will deal with you on another level altogether. You have one essential question for pre-K/K: How does your school handle early readers? I'm sure they've seen early readers before.
I'd also ask about math.
For outside math enrichment, Kumon's great at that age. (It used to be a $100/month.)
For the upper grades, also ask to see the curriculum after DC's been accepted.
Depending on the answers you get, you should explore the following:
1.) Doing public ES and switching later. We did that. Eight years public. Think of all the money we saved. Overall terrific. (And all worksheets are not evil! Private schools use worksheets, too.)
2.) Researching the British School. A friend with three children who among them have attended a number of DC privates swears it's the strongest elementary school.

Finally, as a school obsessed mom, please know that no school is perfect but your daughter will get an excellent education between school and home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DD went to Beauvoir and we never supplemented. She learned to read in 1st grade and is now an A student in upper school at NCS. Everyone needs to relax. They actually know what they are doing, it isn't random. And if it bother you so much, send your child to a montessori where he will learn to read in preschool. Not that it will help him any down the road.

This is not what montessori is about.

Even so, Montessori will help down the road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP,
When you know which schools have accepted your daughter, pursue this research. The school(s) will deal with you on another level altogether. You have one essential question for pre-K/K: How does your school handle early readers? I'm sure they've seen early readers before.
I'd also ask about math.
For outside math enrichment, Kumon's great at that age. (It used to be a $100/month.)
For the upper grades, also ask to see the curriculum after DC's been accepted.
Depending on the answers you get, you should explore the following:
1.) Doing public ES and switching later. We did that. Eight years public. Think of all the money we saved. Overall terrific. (And all worksheets are not evil! Private schools use worksheets, too.)
2.) Researching the British School. A friend with three children who among them have attended a number of DC privates swears it's the strongest elementary school.

Finally, as a school obsessed mom, please know that no school is perfect but your daughter will get an excellent education between school and home.

I have to agree, this school is one of my top 3 elementary schools wrt curriculum and pedagogy.

[Anonymous]

Wow, how could I have missed this thread? If your DC is ready to read and attends one of the top schools you mentioned, then DC will learn to read. The kids break out into small groups for "word play" aka reading, attend science classes, work on math concepts, etc. The schools are really focused on fostering a life-long love for learning.

I have two children who are in the early grades at a Big 3 and I constantly marvel at their academic prowess at such young ages. Don't be fooled by the modesty of the heads of school, faculty, etc. They really have the children's interests at heart - not that of parents, who, in many instances, truly do not understand what comprises the foundations for learning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, how could I have missed this thread? If your DC is ready to read and attends one of the top schools you mentioned, then DC will learn to read. The kids break out into small groups for "word play" aka reading, attend science classes, work on math concepts, etc. The schools are really focused on fostering a life-long love for learning.

I have two children who are in the early grades at a Big 3 and I constantly marvel at their academic prowess at such young ages. Don't be fooled by the modesty of the heads of school, faculty, etc. They really have the children's interests at heart - not that of parents, who, in many instances, truly do not understand what comprises the foundations for learning.

I hate to say this, but some of the heads of school don't understand it either.

[Anonymous]

OP, you need to find a school that you are happy with and comfortable sending your child to--if you are unhappy, your child will pick up on this. It sounds like you are happiest with a more traditional curriculum--and that is fine. I'm willing to bet that many of us on this forum went through the worksheet approach, and we turned out OK.

Most studies show that parents' socio-economic background is the most important factor in a child's success in school, level of educational attainment, etc.--not the philosophical approach to education. If you are well-educated and are middle-upper class, your child will likely do well in just about any educational setting, progressive or traditional.

However, it seems that many responders are unhappy with the inaccurate way in which you are characterizing progressive approaches to learning that are so dominant in the elite lower schools in the area. These children are, in fact, learning a lot, loving school, and are developing a foundation for intellectual growth.

BTW, I am a professor and I can confidently say that my colleagues and I are NOT worried about our young children learning how to read by kindergarten, having a formal science class, and committing math tables to memory. We are quite confident that our children will learn how to read, take science classes with labs, and eventually complete upper level math classes. When we look for schools, we are concerned about our young children attending a school where they are safe; excited about their classroom experiences, teachers, and friends; are exposed to diversity; given lots of outdoor time and free play; and are surrounded by peers whose parents care as deeply about education as we do.

[Anonymous]

The problem with DCUM is that so many of these posts are based on uneducated impressions, anecdotes, and prejudices -- not on solid research, thorough experience, expertise, or real knowledge. OP, you may have any opinion you wish about educational theory and what you want for your child, but what makes you so sure that you are right about what makes a good, state-of-the art education these days? Are you a teacher, a researcher, a pedagogical expert? How many books have you read recently by Bruner, Piaget, Postman, Levine, Gardner, et al?

I would urge those of you with young children to look beyond whose child is reading six weeks earlier than the next and what factoids they can precociously spout. Regardless of which school you choose for your child, you need to have some faith in the expertise and goodwill of the experts who lead them. My kids went through privates (one Big 3, one considered second tier on this board) and one of the great benefits of that experience was that I knew we had the help of entire teams of professionals who had made it their life's work to support my kids, and I didn't need to rethink every choice they made. From their warm and fuzzy pre-ks, my kids went on to read brilliantly, score high on all kinds of APs, and the "second-tier" kid is even at an Ivy!

[Anonymous]

Similar experience to the OP - I've had 2 kids go through warm and fuzzy pre-k's in a progressive educational philosophy school and both have emerged with very strong academic skills at the high school level and most definitely a love of learning. I believe there is a difference between what is being taught in some of these academic pre-k's and even at the higher levels, and what is being absorbed. While not a pre-k example, MCPS is really accelerating math, with Alg 1 at 7th grade for many. This is great for some, but apparently many of these kids are not really getting enough of a foundation in the concepts and are struggling with higher levels of math.

I think if you are not comfortable with the progressive approach (the pedagogical definition) now, you are likely to be frustrated later as well. There are plenty of schools with a more traditional approach - you may want to focus on those.

[Anonymous]

OP -

Do you really think that your kid would go from K-12 at an elite school like Sidwell, Potomac, GDS, Maret, etc and not be academically prepared for a top college?? My understanding is that kids from these schools are almost board in the first years of college b/c they've been so well prepared. Why are you worried about pushing to your kid's limits academically in PK, K, 1?

It seems to me that if the child learns to really love school and learning in these early years, they will be all the more successful as the workload increases in middle and upper divisions - and far less likely to burn out.

To each her own, but I would certainly prefer my kids to LOVE school rather than dread the busywork.

[Anonymous]

OP back here. I am not BP to answer a previous poster. To answer another question: why am I concerned? Do I think these top schools do not prepare kids for elite colleges? I think they do prepare them for certain elite colleges and for certain degrees. They prepare them quite well for liberal arts educations - the ones where you can study fascinating and interesting things in college and paradoxically can emerge unprepared for many jobs. I think these schools probably do an admirable job preparing kids to become future lawyers in the whitest shoe firms and for non-mathematical MBA degrees. I am not as certain that the top high schools do as well preparing students for MIT (to cite a less liberal artsy school) or for higher degrees in Finance, the sciences, engineering, economics. For $30,000 per year, a bright child should have the option to explore any educational future easily rather than a limited set.

Let it be repeated that I am not against progressive principles, far from it. I am just surprised the extent to which it is being promoted at the cost of academic rigor at least at the early grades.

[Anonymous]

OP, if your child shows an interest in science or math, I would save your money and switch to TJ in Virginia, the free #1 public HS in the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP back here. I am not BP to answer a previous poster. To answer another question: why am I concerned? Do I think these top schools do not prepare kids for elite colleges? I think they do prepare them for certain elite colleges and for certain degrees. They prepare them quite well for liberal arts educations - the ones where you can study fascinating and interesting things in college and paradoxically can emerge unprepared for many jobs. I think these schools probably do an admirable job preparing kids to become future lawyers in the whitest shoe firms and for non-mathematical MBA degrees. I am not as certain that the top high schools do as well preparing students for MIT (to cite a less liberal artsy school) or for higher degrees in Finance, the sciences, engineering, economics. For $30,000 per year, a bright child should have the option to explore any educational future easily rather than a limited set.

Let it be repeated that I am not against progressive principles, far from it. I am just surprised the extent to which it is being promoted at the cost of academic rigor at least at the early grades.

Actually, I think the liberal arts philosophy is that it is important to have a background in myriad of different areas (language, science, math, humanities and the fine arts), which presumably will make you better prepared to enter any field. It would be naive for us as parents to believe our kids will have a single career in their lifetime. I think we should instead provide an educational foundation that will prepare them for the several careers they might have. But really OP, you're flat out mistaken if you think the graduates of the privates in this area aren't going on to careers in areas you mentioned; just take a look at the alumni/ae profiles many schools share on their websites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP back here. I am not BP to answer a previous poster. To answer another question: why am I concerned? Do I think these top schools do not prepare kids for elite colleges? I think they do prepare them for certain elite colleges and for certain degrees. They prepare them quite well for liberal arts educations - the ones where you can study fascinating and interesting things in college and paradoxically can emerge unprepared for many jobs. I think these schools probably do an admirable job preparing kids to become future lawyers in the whitest shoe firms and for non-mathematical MBA degrees. I am not as certain that the top high schools do as well preparing students for MIT (to cite a less liberal artsy school) or for higher degrees in Finance, the sciences, engineering, economics. For $30,000 per year, a bright child should have the option to explore any educational future easily rather than a limited set.

Let it be repeated that I am not against progressive principles, far from it. I am just surprised the extent to which it is being promoted at the cost of academic rigor at least at the early grades.

Actually, I think the liberal arts philosophy is that it is important to have a background in myriad of different areas (language, science, math, humanities and the fine arts), which presumably will make you better prepared to enter any field. It would be naive for us as parents to believe our kids will have a single career in their lifetime. I think we should instead provide an educational foundation that will prepare them for the several careers they might have. But really OP, you're flat out mistaken if you think the graduates of the privates in this area aren't going on to careers in areas you mentioned; just take a look at the alumni/ae profiles many schools share on their websites.

OP, I kind of see your point again. They do become MBA's, but the US does import its share of engineers unfortunately, and that goes back to math and science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP back here ... a bright child should have the option to explore any educational future easily rather than a limited set. Let it be repeated that I am not against progressive principles, far from it. I am just surprised the extent to which it is being promoted at the cost of academic rigor at least at the early grades.

OP, could you explain what suggests to you a lack of appropriate rigor or some sort of limited set of academic opportunities? The curricula of these schools have math, science, and reading even at young ages. Are you just assuming they're limited? What's the evidence for your hypothesis?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP back here ... a bright child should have the option to explore any educational future easily rather than a limited set. Let it be repeated that I am not against progressive principles, far from it. I am just surprised the extent to which it is being promoted at the cost of academic rigor at least at the early grades.

OP, could you explain what suggests to you a lack of appropriate rigor or some sort of limited set of academic opportunities? The curricula of these schools have math, science, and reading even at young ages. Are you just assuming they're limited? What's the evidence for your hypothesis?

Not the OP, but what is your evidence that they are appropriate and not limited?