Why are academics frowned upon?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

My evidence that they're not limited (at least not in the way OP seems to claim) is the curricula themselves:
http://www.beauvoirschool.org/podium/default.aspx?t=22709
http://www.gds.org/podium/default.aspx?t=122876
http://www.sidwell.edu/lower_school/academics/index.aspx

Whether they're appropriate or not is something I guess each person needs to judge for herself. I was not making claims about the appropriateness, so I'm not sure I need any evidence.

[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.

My student at one of those progressive student will have finished Calculus BC, and will likely do linear algebra as well. Also shooting for AP Chem and/or AP Physics. Said child wants to major in economics, although probably not at MIT. I think he'll be fine.

[Anonymous]

Should have said "student at one of those progressive schools"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

My evidence that they're not limited (at least not in the way OP seems to claim) is the curricula themselves:
http://www.beauvoirschool.org/podium/default.aspx?t=22709
http://www.gds.org/podium/default.aspx?t=122876
http://www.sidwell.edu/lower_school/academics/index.aspx

Whether they're appropriate or not is something I guess each person needs to judge for herself. I was not making claims about the appropriateness, so I'm not sure I need any evidence.

But those links say nothing about content or whether the objectives are completed.

[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.

My student at one of those progressive student will have finished Calculus BC, and will likely do linear algebra as well. Also shooting for AP Chem and/or AP Physics. Said child wants to major in economics, although probably not at MIT. I think he'll be fine.

No one said that kids at progressive schools don't learn.
But it has been found to be a very complicated way to teach, that is prone to errors in the wrong hands. That is, it is not idiot proof. Kids who go through progressive schools can also be college drop outs (I have met two).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

My student at one of those progressive student will have finished Calculus BC, and will likely do linear algebra as well. Also shooting for AP Chem and/or AP Physics. Said child wants to major in economics, although probably not at MIT. I think he'll be fine.

No one said that kids at progressive schools don't learn.
But it has been found to be a very complicated way to teach, that is prone to errors in the wrong hands. That is, it is not idiot proof. Kids who go through progressive schools can also be college drop outs (I have met two).

Give me a break! Kids who go to any school can be college drop outs. Big 3, public school, progressive - doesn't matter. It happens....

[Anonymous]

No one said that kids at progressive schools don't learn.
But it has been found to be a very complicated way to teach, that is prone to errors in the wrong hands. That is, it is not idiot proof. Kids who go through progressive schools can also be college drop outs (I have met two).

This isn't relevant. Kids who go to any type of school (traditional, progressive etc) can be college drop-outs; it doesn't necessarily mean the school failed. You are just as likely to be a college drop-out if you are: lazy and unmotivated or picked the wrong school or can't pay for it or...

[Anonymous]

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.

But here's the thing. If I had to pick one or the other for my child, and there was no in-between, I'd take the liberal arts 4-yr grad over the engineering 4-yr grad any day. And working backward, if I had to pick just one, and couldn't blend to the two, I'd pick the K-12 or 9-12 that shapes the most impressive liberal arts thinker than the k-12 that shapes the most impressive engineer.

We've lived in Silicon Valley for a while, and I've met, oh, a ton of these imported H1B-visa engineers from India and Russia. Face it, we wouldn't have Google and Facebook and Microsoft without them, no doubt about it. But as a group .... it's not the type of formed thinker and adult that I want my child to be, if I have to go with one model or the other.

[Anonymous]

Is everyone referring to schools like Sidwell and Beauvoir as progressive? Because really they aren't. the progressive schools are more like Green Acres or maybe GDS. Maybe, Sidwell, but certainly not Beauvoir. Its a traditional school. Traditionally, kids are force-fed a lot of facts and busywork in the early elementary years.

I'm awfully confused by the poster who thinks these schools only prepare kids for the humanities. Like someone said, look at what the alumni are doing. But thank goodness they also train kids to be creative thinkers (which is important for math/science careers as well).

[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.

I think that the OP does not understand what academic rigor entails. Academic rigor is not memorization of facts or pre-professional education. Academic rigor is intellectual depth, precision, and creativity. Someone who has experienced an academically rigorous program not only knows the facts, but can understand why and how those facts exist, and knows when those facts can be and ought to be challenged. Academic rigor teachers students how to understand the relationship what we know and how we know it. Students with academically rigorous educations know how to write not just sentences, but how to craft a sound argument.

[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.[/quo

you sound more like a British School falculty member

[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.

If you are not able to homeschool, than perhaps you should consider a British boarding school for your 4 year old.

[Anonymous]

Send your kid to Montessori. Mine learned to read at 3 years old and the entire class was doing geometry by 6th grade...algebra too.

[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.

I think that the OP does not understand what academic rigor entails. Academic rigor is not memorization of facts or pre-professional education. Academic rigor is intellectual depth, precision, and creativity. Someone who has experienced an academically rigorous program not only knows the facts, but can understand why and how those facts exist, and knows when those facts can be and ought to be challenged. Academic rigor teachers students how to understand the relationship what we know and how we know it. Students with academically rigorous educations know how to write not just sentences, but how to craft a sound argument.

Memorization and understanding can go together. Children need to develop their memories and learn to think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But here's the thing. If I had to pick one or the other for my child, and there was no in-between, I'd take the liberal arts 4-yr grad over the engineering 4-yr grad any day. And working backward, if I had to pick just one, and couldn't blend to the two, I'd pick the K-12 or 9-12 that shapes the most impressive liberal arts thinker than the k-12 that shapes the most impressive engineer.

We've lived in Silicon Valley for a while, and I've met, oh, a ton of these imported H1B-visa engineers from India and Russia. Face it, we wouldn't have Google and Facebook and Microsoft without them, no doubt about it. But as a group .... it's not the type of formed thinker and adult that I want my child to be, if I have to go with one model or the other.

Engineers have had a greater impact on my life than the formed thinkers you speak of. BTW, engineers think a lot.
Also, what is wrong with a child leaving school with the tools to be able to make his or her own choices. If he/she can not become an engineer because of poor math skills, he/she will feel deprived. Always better to be prepared to choose.