k-12 or k-8?

[Anonymous]

This is such an interesting thread, but the posts thus far are too simplistic. Based on what’s been shared above you would think the consideration is solely superior developmental experience of K-8 vs security of locking in a position early in a K-12. The reality is there are other considerations at play.

Our children did the full course in a very well regarded area K-8, with a track record of strong HS placement. While we and our children cherished the experience, making adult and kid friends for life, our children were ready to bolt by 6th/7th grade. 9 years is a long time to spend with the same group. Additionally, children start leaving terminal 8s early and while some come in for the MS experience, it doesn’t make up for the attrition and the social benefit in the MS years just wasn’t as bailable for our children as in the primary years.

When our kids did transition to HS (big 3 schools) they (and we) had another surprise. While they were indeed developmentally nurtured and confident, they were not wholly academically prepared. In particular, their grammar skills were severely lacking. We were guided by the HS to do support work over the summer and they were each further supported by faculty at the new school on arrival It took time but fortunately the skills came. We were told by long time leadership at the HS that it is common for students from K-8 to arrive confident and well rounded in general, making them great additions in HS - but also needing support in some academic areas. They mentioned how in their experience the teaching resources at the K-8s are not consistent but the families are reticent to acknowledge it or leave early because of the affinity for the K-8 communities. In hindsight, that was certainly our experience.

This isn’t a two sided discussion. It needs to recognize there are many considerations that factor into what is the best environment for any child And that sometimes those considerations are counter to the principals that make K-8 so appealing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:K-6 is an option as well, which we fond to be best.

for transitioning during a less competitive time, yes. but research shows that moving after 8 is better for confidence/self esteem, etc. than moving after 6. even public school systems have started to reintroduce k-8 because they've learned that the middle school model that most of us endured is a disaster.

Disagree. I think 6th is about as long as you can go before the negatives of teen years start to seep in to a kid's life. That undermines the k-8 benefits discussed above, in my opinion. But a sixth grader can still gain from the big man on campus syndrome.

Transition to another private for 7th is probably a bit easier, that is true, but still no walk in the park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Though attractive doesn't mean the best possible academic experience. But I do get why people settle for a sure thing. I am not sure the sure thing actually provides the best experience for a child. Plus, lifers sometimes (but not always, of course) end up being the weaker students, which means the sure thing might not pay off in the end.

The kids who come in at 9th have to be strong, which means the k-8s have to have strong programs. Otherwise, the k-8s would sputter and die.

But the whole point is that you CAN move your kid at ninth, but you don’t HAVE to.

If your kid turns out to be a great fit for the school, then stay!
If your kid isn’t, then move!

Why does this seem so hard for people to get their heads around? People leave K-12 schools all the time. It’s not a life sentence. You are allowed to leave at any point. You simply have the option to remain through 12.

And as for non-lifers being stronger students, what does that matter? Unless you weirdly think that the act of changing schools makes someone a stronger student… I can’t see how that would make a difference to anyone’s decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Though attractive doesn't mean the best possible academic experience. But I do get why people settle for a sure thing. I am not sure the sure thing actually provides the best experience for a child. Plus, lifers sometimes (but not always, of course) end up being the weaker students, which means the sure thing might not pay off in the end.

The kids who come in at 9th have to be strong, which means the k-8s have to have strong programs. Otherwise, the k-8s would sputter and die.

But the whole point is that you CAN move your kid at ninth, but you don’t HAVE to.

If your kid turns out to be a great fit for the school, then stay!
If your kid isn’t, then move!

Why does this seem so hard for people to get their heads around? People leave K-12 schools all the time. It’s not a life sentence. You are allowed to leave at any point. You simply have the option to remain through 12.

And as for non-lifers being stronger students, what does that matter? Unless you weirdly think that the act of changing schools makes someone a stronger student… I can’t see how that would make a difference to anyone’s decision.

It's not hard to understand. The point being made is that the lower school years at these schools are probably not the best possible lower school experience that kids could have. There are a multitude of reasons for this, but it's pretty clear that most people don't pick the k-12s for the lower schools. They pick them for the upper schools and are willing to forego a potentially more beneficial experience for the security. Of course, anyone can leave at any time. The point is that the better product for lower school is in most cases a school that focuses on lower school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Though attractive doesn't mean the best possible academic experience. But I do get why people settle for a sure thing. I am not sure the sure thing actually provides the best experience for a child. Plus, lifers sometimes (but not always, of course) end up being the weaker students, which means the sure thing might not pay off in the end.

The kids who come in at 9th have to be strong, which means the k-8s have to have strong programs. Otherwise, the k-8s would sputter and die.

But the whole point is that you CAN move your kid at ninth, but you don’t HAVE to.

If your kid turns out to be a great fit for the school, then stay!
If your kid isn’t, then move!

Why does this seem so hard for people to get their heads around? People leave K-12 schools all the time. It’s not a life sentence. You are allowed to leave at any point. You simply have the option to remain through 12.

And as for non-lifers being stronger students, what does that matter? Unless you weirdly think that the act of changing schools makes someone a stronger student… I can’t see how that would make a difference to anyone’s decision.

It's about providing the best experience throughout a kid's education and not settling because it's a pathway to a good high school.

[Anonymous]

Why would you think that? When we chose the school, it was absolutely because we loved the immediate environment. Did we like the fact that it was a K-12? Sure. But that was by no means the deciding factor. I don’t know anyone who chose our school mainly because they didn’t want to have to apply to high school. That was, if a factor, a small one.

I just don’t see any reason at all to think that “it's pretty clear that most people don't pick the k-12s for the lower schools”. This entire thread is based on a false premise.

[Anonymous]

Why would anyone want to pay $50 K for lower school if not to ensure a place in high school? The value of lower school education at a k-12 is not worth $50 k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone want to pay $50 K for lower school if not to ensure a place in high school? The value of lower school education at a k-12 is not worth $50 k.

Well, it's not $50k first of all. And second of all -- maybe for the best possible education as well as the opportunity to target the best fit high school when the time comes. The point is the kids coming in at 9th grade are typically the strongest students and they were obviously educated elsewhere.

Another question is why pay $50k a year simply to ensure a place in high school where you will likely be middle of the pack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone want to pay $50 K for lower school if not to ensure a place in high school? The value of lower school education at a k-12 is not worth $50 k.

Just because you can’t think of another reason doesn’t mean there are no other reasons. It’s find that you don’t think it’s worth it. You get to make that decision for your family.

But to follow your line of reasoning, why do you think people pay an equal amount for a K-8? Because they’re not typically any cheaper.

[Anonymous]

My kids left a much discussed k8 after sixth grade. We left because it was time and we knew there was more out there. I never regretted the decision because 7th and 8th grade really prepares for hs. I am not sure either of our kids would have gotten in the advanced classes arriving in 9th. They had been advanced at our k8 and I assumed it would be easy at next school. Nope. The curriculum style was different and the amount of work was different. I think both my kids would have been fine to start in 9th but the academic transition was so much easier in 7th. I would say though if social change is a worry then I would wait until 9th because I noticed 7th is a
difficult time to arrive at a new school where majorly of kids have been together for years. Both my kids are not the anxious type so this wasn’t the biggest deal but it would have been if they was the stressed out type.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids left a much discussed k8 after sixth grade. We left because it was time and we knew there was more out there. I never regretted the decision because 7th and 8th grade really prepares for hs. I am not sure either of our kids would have gotten in the advanced classes arriving in 9th. They had been advanced at our k8 and I assumed it would be easy at next school. Nope. The curriculum style was different and the amount of work was different. I think both my kids would have been fine to start in 9th but the academic transition was so much easier in 7th. I would say though if social change is a worry then I would wait until 9th because I noticed 7th is a
difficult time to arrive at a new school where majorly of kids have been together for years. Both my kids are not the anxious type so this wasn’t the biggest deal but it would have been if they was the stressed out type.

Do you wish they had enrolled in ack-12 from the outset?

[Anonymous]

My DCs went to a k-8 and it was a great choice for one, maybe not as good for the other because of the relatively small size of the school. Both applied out for 9th and while it was a little stressful it wasn't that big a deal because we live in an excellent public school cluster so had a built in back up, and one of my DCs preferred our public school to private options and went there. I think transitioning to a new school in 9th was a big plus for both my DCs. They maintained friendships from the K-8 but were able to start fresh.

As a bonus the applying out process was good prep for college applications and my DCs had more appreciation for ECs, SATs, etc because they'd been through a version of the process already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids left a much discussed k8 after sixth grade. We left because it was time and we knew there was more out there. I never regretted the decision because 7th and 8th grade really prepares for hs. I am not sure either of our kids would have gotten in the advanced classes arriving in 9th. They had been advanced at our k8 and I assumed it would be easy at next school. Nope. The curriculum style was different and the amount of work was different. I think both my kids would have been fine to start in 9th but the academic transition was so much easier in 7th. I would say though if social change is a worry then I would wait until 9th because I noticed 7th is a
difficult time to arrive at a new school where majorly of kids have been together for years. Both my kids are not the anxious type so this wasn’t the biggest deal but it would have been if they was the stressed out type.

Do you wish they had enrolled in ack-12 from the outset?

No I don't because I do believe that K8 schools have an important role to play even when it comes to things like sports. Most K8 schools start competitive sports in fifth grade because they have the field space. I also think it really forced us to watch the academics in a way I would not have if I had sent the kids to a K12. You know those grades have to be good and you are looking at things like standardized testing (ERBS) to make sure everything is going okay. I also feel by sixth most kids are ready for something new and different and are ready to take on a harder challenge. Our school consolidates the classes starting seventh so the education is not the same. You have a variety of different learners and that can hold back classes like math. I think the whole thing worked out. The social thing though is something to really consider. It is now easy starting in seventh at all these schools and we thought long and hard about it but our kids did not have an issue but I imagine that some kids would.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Though attractive doesn't mean the best possible academic experience. But I do get why people settle for a sure thing. I am not sure the sure thing actually provides the best experience for a child. Plus, lifers sometimes (but not always, of course) end up being the weaker students, which means the sure thing might not pay off in the end.

The kids who come in at 9th have to be strong, which means the k-8s have to have strong programs. Otherwise, the k-8s would sputter and die.

But the whole point is that you CAN move your kid at ninth, but you don’t HAVE to.

If your kid turns out to be a great fit for the school, then stay!
If your kid isn’t, then move!

Why does this seem so hard for people to get their heads around? People leave K-12 schools all the time. It’s not a life sentence. You are allowed to leave at any point. You simply have the option to remain through 12.

And as for non-lifers being stronger students, what does that matter? Unless you weirdly think that the act of changing schools makes someone a stronger student… I can’t see how that would make a difference to anyone’s decision.

So I should choose K based on 9-12? Simply because I could leave at any time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why would anyone want to pay $50 K for lower school if not to ensure a place in high school? The value of lower school education at a k-12 is not worth $50 k.

VERY. ODD. PERSPECTIVE. Truly