tell me about middle school at GDS?

[Anonymous]

OP here. Thanks for all the responses and discussion. We decided not to move forward after a long family discussion. I think it just wouldn’t be a good fit. Maybe for high school, but not now.

[Anonymous]

It is a little frustrating that they are propagating a leadership model based on being the loudest voice in the room rather than encouraging kids to take the time to listen, reflect, engage and then respond.

[Anonymous]

Exactly! A silent reflection. Like at Sidwell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like how kids are supposed to reverse engineer how to spell or read by themselves, but applied to every class subject.

We're talking about middle school, so presumably the kids all know how to read.

Dig in a bit there Pp….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I personally was excited for my reserved child to attend GDS because I wanted him to be more outspoken. It worked for him. He's now in eight grade and just this morning was going on about how much he loves the school and begged me to stop asking if he wants to consider any other HS.

Agreed. I have a middle schooler with a similar experience. I also have a lower school child elsewhere. Here's the thing when deciding about where to send your school... there are different schools of thought on the ways you may want to approach structure. Some people think their child has EF skills and need structure so they aim for a Cathedral school/Holton where the schools really emphasize tools to develop executive functioning. Others see their child as lacking EF skills and opt for GDS/Sidwell where the kids can thrive a bit more in "chaos" although I do think that word has been thrown around pretty heavily in this thread. I chose to send my somewhat reserved child to GDS and they have blossomed there and do not hold back their thoughts, but are respectful about it. IMO, respect is taught and reinforced in the home and a kid who has been taught to respectfully use their voice will continue to do so in any environment. Almost all kids that I've encountered at GDS are that way, and frankly in the other schools my kids have gone to as well, so by no means an "only GDS" thing. My point being that sometimes you may want to slightly push your child outside of their comfort zones if you think they have skills that they haven't had the chance to use yet. I'm proud of my outspoken child and grateful that the school has cultivated a confidence in making their voice heard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are interested in the GDS middle school. My kid isn't reserved and doesn't need a lot of support, but also isn't one to be the first to shout out answers. My kid has expressed frustration in the past about disruptive kids in classrooms. The "disruptions" are distractions that hold the class back. Is it fair to say the "disruptions/chaos" spoken of in this thread are confident kids speaking up/out loud first and not kids who are disengaged/bored and making scenes that hold the class back?

Judging from the responses we heard over zoom for two years and once welcomed back into class, the shout outs are mere guesses as there was little instruction ever until the end. So students have to be smart enough not to remember the incorrect guesses, but how they eventually hopefully led to the correct answer in science or math. It really was led like a British college tutorial class, very student led, for better or worse. It was not efficient, that’s for sure. And easy to get confused. Then once confused, you’re done for for that lesson.

I don't think the goal of good education is efficiency. The goal (at least gds's) goal is to learn how to think, engage, and discuss, rather than memorize a teacher-provided answer.

Efficiency is not the opposite of nor is it inconsistent with learning to think, engage and discuss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are interested in the GDS middle school. My kid isn't reserved and doesn't need a lot of support, but also isn't one to be the first to shout out answers. My kid has expressed frustration in the past about disruptive kids in classrooms. The "disruptions" are distractions that hold the class back. Is it fair to say the "disruptions/chaos" spoken of in this thread are confident kids speaking up/out loud first and not kids who are disengaged/bored and making scenes that hold the class back?

Judging from the responses we heard over zoom for two years and once welcomed back into class, the shout outs are mere guesses as there was little instruction ever until the end. So students have to be smart enough not to remember the incorrect guesses, but how they eventually hopefully led to the correct answer in science or math. It really was led like a British college tutorial class, very student led, for better or worse. It was not efficient, that’s for sure. And easy to get confused. Then once confused, you’re done for for that lesson.

I don't think the goal of good education is efficiency. The goal (at least gds's) goal is to learn how to think, engage, and discuss, rather than memorize a teacher-provided answer.

Efficiency is not the opposite of nor is it inconsistent with learning to think, engage and discuss.

They are certainly in conflict with each other. Let's say that a particular lesson is on the causes of WW1. The most efficient way for students to learn is for the teacher to explicitly tell them. The least efficient would be to give students a bunch of primary documents and direct them to figure it out themselves with no guidance. The best balance between efficiency and independent thought (that is, how much guidance and direction the teacher gives) depends on the age/abilities of the students and the pedagogical philosophy of the school/teacher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Exactly! A silent reflection. Like at Sidwell.

My kid was in a Quaker school similar to Sidwell and developed the erroneous notion that it’s “showing off” to display your talents in any way. It took years to get them to try things they perceived as “showing off” that required performance like music, theater, dance, etc. Quakers also lack a sense of humor IME.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are interested in the GDS middle school. My kid isn't reserved and doesn't need a lot of support, but also isn't one to be the first to shout out answers. My kid has expressed frustration in the past about disruptive kids in classrooms. The "disruptions" are distractions that hold the class back. Is it fair to say the "disruptions/chaos" spoken of in this thread are confident kids speaking up/out loud first and not kids who are disengaged/bored and making scenes that hold the class back?

Judging from the responses we heard over zoom for two years and once welcomed back into class, the shout outs are mere guesses as there was little instruction ever until the end. So students have to be smart enough not to remember the incorrect guesses, but how they eventually hopefully led to the correct answer in science or math. It really was led like a British college tutorial class, very student led, for better or worse. It was not efficient, that’s for sure. And easy to get confused. Then once confused, you’re done for for that lesson.

I don't think the goal of good education is efficiency. The goal (at least gds's) goal is to learn how to think, engage, and discuss, rather than memorize a teacher-provided answer.

Efficiency is not the opposite of nor is it inconsistent with learning to think, engage and discuss.

They are certainly in conflict with each other. Let's say that a particular lesson is on the causes of WW1. The most efficient way for students to learn is for the teacher to explicitly tell them. The least efficient would be to give students a bunch of primary documents and direct them to figure it out themselves with no guidance. The best balance between efficiency and independent thought (that is, how much guidance and direction the teacher gives) depends on the age/abilities of the students and the pedagogical philosophy of the school/teacher.

And the silliest and least efficient way would be to take 1-2 months and reenact the beginning of WWI discussions and troop movements amongst themselves whilst incorporating only high level info. Teacher sits at desk and does whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are interested in the GDS middle school. My kid isn't reserved and doesn't need a lot of support, but also isn't one to be the first to shout out answers. My kid has expressed frustration in the past about disruptive kids in classrooms. The "disruptions" are distractions that hold the class back. Is it fair to say the "disruptions/chaos" spoken of in this thread are confident kids speaking up/out loud first and not kids who are disengaged/bored and making scenes that hold the class back?

Judging from the responses we heard over zoom for two years and once welcomed back into class, the shout outs are mere guesses as there was little instruction ever until the end. So students have to be smart enough not to remember the incorrect guesses, but how they eventually hopefully led to the correct answer in science or math. It really was led like a British college tutorial class, very student led, for better or worse. It was not efficient, that’s for sure. And easy to get confused. Then once confused, you’re done for for that lesson.

I don't think the goal of good education is efficiency. The goal (at least gds's) goal is to learn how to think, engage, and discuss, rather than memorize a teacher-provided answer.

Efficiency is not the opposite of nor is it inconsistent with learning to think, engage and discuss.

They are certainly in conflict with each other. Let's say that a particular lesson is on the causes of WW1. The most efficient way for students to learn is for the teacher to explicitly tell them. The least efficient would be to give students a bunch of primary documents and direct them to figure it out themselves with no guidance. The best balance between efficiency and independent thought (that is, how much guidance and direction the teacher gives) depends on the age/abilities of the students and the pedagogical philosophy of the school/teacher.

I disagree with the bolded, particularly for students who are not strong auditory learners. I also don't know of any school that approaches education this way in any case, so it is moot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are interested in the GDS middle school. My kid isn't reserved and doesn't need a lot of support, but also isn't one to be the first to shout out answers. My kid has expressed frustration in the past about disruptive kids in classrooms. The "disruptions" are distractions that hold the class back. Is it fair to say the "disruptions/chaos" spoken of in this thread are confident kids speaking up/out loud first and not kids who are disengaged/bored and making scenes that hold the class back?

Judging from the responses we heard over zoom for two years and once welcomed back into class, the shout outs are mere guesses as there was little instruction ever until the end. So students have to be smart enough not to remember the incorrect guesses, but how they eventually hopefully led to the correct answer in science or math. It really was led like a British college tutorial class, very student led, for better or worse. It was not efficient, that’s for sure. And easy to get confused. Then once confused, you’re done for for that lesson.

I don't think the goal of good education is efficiency. The goal (at least gds's) goal is to learn how to think, engage, and discuss, rather than memorize a teacher-provided answer.

Efficiency is not the opposite of nor is it inconsistent with learning to think, engage and discuss.

They are certainly in conflict with each other. Let's say that a particular lesson is on the causes of WW1. The most efficient way for students to learn is for the teacher to explicitly tell them. The least efficient would be to give students a bunch of primary documents and direct them to figure it out themselves with no guidance. The best balance between efficiency and independent thought (that is, how much guidance and direction the teacher gives) depends on the age/abilities of the students and the pedagogical philosophy of the school/teacher.

I disagree with the bolded, particularly for students who are not strong auditory learners. I also don't know of any school that approaches education this way in any case, so it is moot.

A teacher can tell students something in writing too.

I don't think any school does anything on either extreme end, at least not consistently. But certainly different schools are going to spend more time on one end of the continuum than another. I don't think there's a universal best place to be -- but there may be an optimum place for your particular child, so find a school that matches your child's needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are interested in the GDS middle school. My kid isn't reserved and doesn't need a lot of support, but also isn't one to be the first to shout out answers. My kid has expressed frustration in the past about disruptive kids in classrooms. The "disruptions" are distractions that hold the class back. Is it fair to say the "disruptions/chaos" spoken of in this thread are confident kids speaking up/out loud first and not kids who are disengaged/bored and making scenes that hold the class back?

Judging from the responses we heard over zoom for two years and once welcomed back into class, the shout outs are mere guesses as there was little instruction ever until the end. So students have to be smart enough not to remember the incorrect guesses, but how they eventually hopefully led to the correct answer in science or math. It really was led like a British college tutorial class, very student led, for better or worse. It was not efficient, that’s for sure. And easy to get confused. Then once confused, you’re done for for that lesson.

I don't think the goal of good education is efficiency. The goal (at least gds's) goal is to learn how to think, engage, and discuss, rather than memorize a teacher-provided answer.

Efficiency is not the opposite of nor is it inconsistent with learning to think, engage and discuss.

They are certainly in conflict with each other. Let's say that a particular lesson is on the causes of WW1. The most efficient way for students to learn is for the teacher to explicitly tell them. The least efficient would be to give students a bunch of primary documents and direct them to figure it out themselves with no guidance. The best balance between efficiency and independent thought (that is, how much guidance and direction the teacher gives) depends on the age/abilities of the students and the pedagogical philosophy of the school/teacher.

I disagree with the bolded, particularly for students who are not strong auditory learners. I also don't know of any school that approaches education this way in any case, so it is moot.

A teacher can tell students something in writing too.

I don't think any school does anything on either extreme end, at least not consistently. But certainly different schools are going to spend more time on one end of the continuum than another. I don't think there's a universal best place to be -- but there may be an optimum place for your particular child, so find a school that matches your child's needs.

The question is: is the MS worth $50K a year? Will the kid really be happier or learn better than a $30K or public school? Or rather, it is worth is because they have an easier way to get into top 20 universities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally was excited for my reserved child to attend GDS because I wanted him to be more outspoken. It worked for him. He's now in eight grade and just this morning was going on about how much he loves the school and begged me to stop asking if he wants to consider any other HS.

Agreed. I have a middle schooler with a similar experience. I also have a lower school child elsewhere. Here's the thing when deciding about where to send your school... there are different schools of thought on the ways you may want to approach structure. Some people think their child has EF skills and need structure so they aim for a Cathedral school/Holton where the schools really emphasize tools to develop executive functioning. Others see their child as lacking EF skills and opt for GDS/Sidwell where the kids can thrive a bit more in "chaos" although I do think that word has been thrown around pretty heavily in this thread. I chose to send my somewhat reserved child to GDS and they have blossomed there and do not hold back their thoughts, but are respectful about it. IMO, respect is taught and reinforced in the home and a kid who has been taught to respectfully use their voice will continue to do so in any environment. Almost all kids that I've encountered at GDS are that way, and frankly in the other schools my kids have gone to as well, so by no means an "only GDS" thing. My point being that sometimes you may want to slightly push your child outside of their comfort zones if you think they have skills that they haven't had the chance to use yet. I'm proud of my outspoken child and grateful that the school has cultivated a confidence in making their voice heard.

To the first point about a child having EF skills and needing structure. In my experience, it’s the opposite. A child who doesn’t have strong EF skills will likely get distracted and overwhelmed in a chaotic environment where the rules are there are no rules. I could see kids getting distracted in class, misunderstanding or not understanding the goal of a lesson that went sideways, losing homework or other items, and needing to work much harder to move through the day.

An earlier PP commented that in HS teachers are better able to manage classroom behavior than MS. That doesn’t make sense to me. If anything, the MS teachers should manage behavior better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are interested in the GDS middle school. My kid isn't reserved and doesn't need a lot of support, but also isn't one to be the first to shout out answers. My kid has expressed frustration in the past about disruptive kids in classrooms. The "disruptions" are distractions that hold the class back. Is it fair to say the "disruptions/chaos" spoken of in this thread are confident kids speaking up/out loud first and not kids who are disengaged/bored and making scenes that hold the class back?

Judging from the responses we heard over zoom for two years and once welcomed back into class, the shout outs are mere guesses as there was little instruction ever until the end. So students have to be smart enough not to remember the incorrect guesses, but how they eventually hopefully led to the correct answer in science or math. It really was led like a British college tutorial class, very student led, for better or worse. It was not efficient, that’s for sure. And easy to get confused. Then once confused, you’re done for for that lesson.

I was thinking along the same lines re: Oxford style tutorial. But that can really devolve in middle school. An entire class can be eaten up by an off topic back and forth between a student and a teacher. It’s not a great way to cover lots of material.