How to tell a child they must leave a school that they love?

[Anonymous]

^^ if you disagree with OP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What parents wouldn't try to move her kids to a school with less poverty? white or black. Y'all are being really dumb piling on the OP.

OP said her kindergarten child, in her 2nd week of school, is not being challenged academically. If you don't call out BS when you see it, you are part of the problem.

I think it's possible. Not that anything too awful has happened in three weeks of K, but if the OP has been at the school since PK3 she probably knows what the school's attitude is. If the teacher is underwhelming or they've already denied her request for differentiation or proposed an inadequate plan, then the OP is right to have concerns. ITS is a good school, I wouldn't pass it up for an IB that I didn't have confidence in.

Tell me about these "requests for differentiation" you make for your kindergartener in week 2??

Not OP, but probably a request for a formal evaluation and maybe a push-in or reading in another classroom or at least some kind of specific approach to be communicated to the parent. Some kids read really really early, and can get pretty far ahead. Especially if they are older in the class age spectrum.

Then what evidence do you have that such a kid would be more catered to at ITS? Plus, ALL kids get evaluated in K. Asking right out of the gate for additional evaluation and push-ins etc is just being anti-social.

Because ITS has a much better student-teacher ratio and more high performing students for peer challenge.

Wrong again. Our DCPS had the same (a bit better) student-teacher ratio. What is "peer challenge" in kindergarten?? As for "high-performing student" that's what I've been saying -- OP wants to move to a more homogeneous environment. That's the goal; not challenge or curriculum (at this point).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What parents wouldn't try to move her kids to a school with less poverty? white or black. Y'all are being really dumb piling on the OP.

OP said her kindergarten child, in her 2nd week of school, is not being challenged academically. If you don't call out BS when you see it, you are part of the problem.

I think it's possible. Not that anything too awful has happened in three weeks of K, but if the OP has been at the school since PK3 she probably knows what the school's attitude is. If the teacher is underwhelming or they've already denied her request for differentiation or proposed an inadequate plan, then the OP is right to have concerns. ITS is a good school, I wouldn't pass it up for an IB that I didn't have confidence in.

Tell me about these "requests for differentiation" you make for your kindergartener in week 2??

Not OP, but probably a request for a formal evaluation and maybe a push-in or reading in another classroom or at least some kind of specific approach to be communicated to the parent. Some kids read really really early, and can get pretty far ahead. Especially if they are older in the class age spectrum.

Then what evidence do you have that such a kid would be more catered to at ITS? Plus, ALL kids get evaluated in K. Asking right out of the gate for additional evaluation and push-ins etc is just being anti-social.

Because ITS has a much better student-teacher ratio and more high performing students for peer challenge.

Wrong again. Our DCPS had the same (a bit better) student-teacher ratio. What is "peer challenge" in kindergarten?? As for "high-performing student" that's what I've been saying -- OP wants to move to a more homogeneous environment. That's the goal; not challenge or curriculum (at this point).

Yay for you, but ours has much worse ratio at the moment. Why do you assume all schools are like yours?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, it's K at ITS. That list has moved sooo fast, I was not mentally prepared for it.

The reason for the move is that DC is not being academically challenged right now. It's not because of too many black kids in the upper grades, it's because of hardly any high-performing kids in any grade and because I know her friends are leaving anyway. They are working on some pull-outs or whatever, but I know it's nowhere near the challenge that DC needs. I like the teacher but the group work is far below DC's level.

I'm not sure that we'll be thrilled with ITS as a middle school because it's such a small program, but I know it's a recently created program so we'll see how it grows. I would choose it over our IB middle school in a heartbeat.

I'm in a similar situation but chose IB over moving.

K was not an easy place for academic challenges because the school was not set up for it. K was just not that academically focused.

We're a few years into early elementary now and it keeps getting better. The school and teachers continue to get better at providing individualized work. There are also classmates who have stepped up their game. Not all kids develop at the same rate. Some who didn't do anything amazing academically in K are doing great now. Our IB also has really small class sizes, so that helps.

Thanks. Do you mind saying the school? I feel like our K is overly academically focused, but at a lower academic level than DC is at. DC has a reading pull-out but still, most of the morning is spent on Fundations type stuff that is age- and level-appropriate for most of the class but not for her.

fundations at our DCPS was right on target for my smart, white high SES K boy EOTP. And ITS is a FULL YEAR behind DCPS - I know because I compared notes with an ITS parent. this is 100% about you wanting your child in a more homogeneous class, and 0% about the actual curriculum.

Funny how ITS has way better test scores than Ward 5 IBs, then.

Sorry, but our IB pushes phonic so hard because a lot of the kids in K are behind where they should be. At a HRCS the kids may learn to read a little later because they have them doing other stuff instead of drilling on letters of the alphabet. But if the OP's child is advanced, I understand why Fundations would be unappealing. A child who already knows the sounds for each letter and basic phonetic combinations would be bored in Fundations.

I love how there's no way the DCPS can be more advanced than ITS. The DCPS curriculum is more rigorous because the kids are behind in DCPS; but the kids read later in ITS because they are more advanced.

BTW there was a broad range of reading/writing readiness in our DCPS class that did not correspond to race or SES.

The DCPS curriculum is more focused on phonics and reading intervention for kids who struggle. Other curricula may result in later reading, but that doesn't mean it's a less valid or "rigorous" a curriculum. It's just a different approach. If a child already reads, they don't need K to be a year of intense phonics. I don't know why the kids at ITS read later (or if that's even true), but the school has great test scores so whatever they're doing is probably working just fine.

No, DCPS K is more rigorous and reading/writing focus. That's why some people don't like it!! They want ITS *because* it's less pressured in K. People don't actually want more academics in early elementary; they want their kids to be around kids like them.

DCPS is more academic focused and if the academics are things OP's child has already mastered, what is the point of that? I thought Fundations was fine, because it helped my child learn to read. A child who reads already is not getting much out of it.

Well then don't pretend that she's switching to ITS for more "academics." Because ITS will surely be focusing on reading and writing, but later in K and 1st as compared to DCPS! how much MORE bored will this brilliant child be then, a whole year later? Come on.

It is for a different *style* of academics. And for a middle school that is way better than Brookland or Cardozo or whatever the OP currently has access to.

A different style - yeah, right! What OP wants is a more homogenous environment, filled with kids and teachers who don't feel any stress to push academics b/c they have the attitude "my [white/high SES] kid will be fine wherever". That may be true but don't pretend it's academics that are making you switch schools.

NP: First, if OP wants fewer worksheets or less Fundations in K, then, yes, that is about academics. Many early childhood experts believe that focusing on inquiry and building blocks early on leads to better academic outcomes later than diving deep into teaching reading and arithmetic at a desk at an early age.

Second, if you disagrees with you about what the best academic approach is, why do you care?! Find the curriculum that is best for your kid and do that. OP is moving from a DCPS to a charter school -- she's not doing something that denies you any opportunity (unless you are on the ITS waitlist just after her).

I just want people to be honest, and it really bothers me when they claim that such-and-such a DCPS is "not academic enough." What you want is LESS academics; not more. You don't think your kid NEEDS academics. That's the point. I call bullsh*t on "focusing on inquiry" anyway. What is that, in K? It's playing. Which is fine. If you want your child to play in K, I truly understand that. But don't claim you're switching schools for the challenge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, it's K at ITS. That list has moved sooo fast, I was not mentally prepared for it.

The reason for the move is that DC is not being academically challenged right now. It's not because of too many black kids in the upper grades, it's because of hardly any high-performing kids in any grade and because I know her friends are leaving anyway. They are working on some pull-outs or whatever, but I know it's nowhere near the challenge that DC needs. I like the teacher but the group work is far below DC's level.

I'm not sure that we'll be thrilled with ITS as a middle school because it's such a small program, but I know it's a recently created program so we'll see how it grows. I would choose it over our IB middle school in a heartbeat.

I'm in a similar situation but chose IB over moving.

K was not an easy place for academic challenges because the school was not set up for it. K was just not that academically focused.

We're a few years into early elementary now and it keeps getting better. The school and teachers continue to get better at providing individualized work. There are also classmates who have stepped up their game. Not all kids develop at the same rate. Some who didn't do anything amazing academically in K are doing great now. Our IB also has really small class sizes, so that helps.

Thanks. Do you mind saying the school? I feel like our K is overly academically focused, but at a lower academic level than DC is at. DC has a reading pull-out but still, most of the morning is spent on Fundations type stuff that is age- and level-appropriate for most of the class but not for her.

fundations at our DCPS was right on target for my smart, white high SES K boy EOTP. And ITS is a FULL YEAR behind DCPS - I know because I compared notes with an ITS parent. this is 100% about you wanting your child in a more homogeneous class, and 0% about the actual curriculum.

Funny how ITS has way better test scores than Ward 5 IBs, then.

Sorry, but our IB pushes phonic so hard because a lot of the kids in K are behind where they should be. At a HRCS the kids may learn to read a little later because they have them doing other stuff instead of drilling on letters of the alphabet. But if the OP's child is advanced, I understand why Fundations would be unappealing. A child who already knows the sounds for each letter and basic phonetic combinations would be bored in Fundations.

I love how there's no way the DCPS can be more advanced than ITS. The DCPS curriculum is more rigorous because the kids are behind in DCPS; but the kids read later in ITS because they are more advanced.

BTW there was a broad range of reading/writing readiness in our DCPS class that did not correspond to race or SES.

The DCPS curriculum is more focused on phonics and reading intervention for kids who struggle. Other curricula may result in later reading, but that doesn't mean it's a less valid or "rigorous" a curriculum. It's just a different approach. If a child already reads, they don't need K to be a year of intense phonics. I don't know why the kids at ITS read later (or if that's even true), but the school has great test scores so whatever they're doing is probably working just fine.

No, DCPS K is more rigorous and reading/writing focus. That's why some people don't like it!! They want ITS *because* it's less pressured in K. People don't actually want more academics in early elementary; they want their kids to be around kids like them.

DCPS is more academic focused and if the academics are things OP's child has already mastered, what is the point of that? I thought Fundations was fine, because it helped my child learn to read. A child who reads already is not getting much out of it.

Well then don't pretend that she's switching to ITS for more "academics." Because ITS will surely be focusing on reading and writing, but later in K and 1st as compared to DCPS! how much MORE bored will this brilliant child be then, a whole year later? Come on.

It is for a different *style* of academics. And for a middle school that is way better than Brookland or Cardozo or whatever the OP currently has access to.

A different style - yeah, right! What OP wants is a more homogenous environment, filled with kids and teachers who don't feel any stress to push academics b/c they have the attitude "my [white/high SES] kid will be fine wherever". That may be true but don't pretend it's academics that are making you switch schools.

NP: First, if OP wants fewer worksheets or less Fundations in K, then, yes, that is about academics. Many early childhood experts believe that focusing on inquiry and building blocks early on leads to better academic outcomes later than diving deep into teaching reading and arithmetic at a desk at an early age.

Second, if you disagrees with you about what the best academic approach is, why do you care?! Find the curriculum that is best for your kid and do that. OP is moving from a DCPS to a charter school -- she's not doing something that denies you any opportunity (unless you are on the ITS waitlist just after her).

I just want people to be honest, and it really bothers me when they claim that such-and-such a DCPS is "not academic enough." What you want is LESS academics; not more. You don't think your kid NEEDS academics. That's the point. I call bullsh*t on "focusing on inquiry" anyway. What is that, in K? It's playing. Which is fine. If you want your child to play in K, I truly understand that. But don't claim you're switching schools for the challenge.

Go read the education researchers. You are dismissing something without knowing anything about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, it's K at ITS. That list has moved sooo fast, I was not mentally prepared for it.

The reason for the move is that DC is not being academically challenged right now. It's not because of too many black kids in the upper grades, it's because of hardly any high-performing kids in any grade and because I know her friends are leaving anyway. They are working on some pull-outs or whatever, but I know it's nowhere near the challenge that DC needs. I like the teacher but the group work is far below DC's level.

I'm not sure that we'll be thrilled with ITS as a middle school because it's such a small program, but I know it's a recently created program so we'll see how it grows. I would choose it over our IB middle school in a heartbeat.

I'm in a similar situation but chose IB over moving.

K was not an easy place for academic challenges because the school was not set up for it. K was just not that academically focused.

We're a few years into early elementary now and it keeps getting better. The school and teachers continue to get better at providing individualized work. There are also classmates who have stepped up their game. Not all kids develop at the same rate. Some who didn't do anything amazing academically in K are doing great now. Our IB also has really small class sizes, so that helps.

Thanks. Do you mind saying the school? I feel like our K is overly academically focused, but at a lower academic level than DC is at. DC has a reading pull-out but still, most of the morning is spent on Fundations type stuff that is age- and level-appropriate for most of the class but not for her.

fundations at our DCPS was right on target for my smart, white high SES K boy EOTP. And ITS is a FULL YEAR behind DCPS - I know because I compared notes with an ITS parent. this is 100% about you wanting your child in a more homogeneous class, and 0% about the actual curriculum.

Funny how ITS has way better test scores than Ward 5 IBs, then.

Sorry, but our IB pushes phonic so hard because a lot of the kids in K are behind where they should be. At a HRCS the kids may learn to read a little later because they have them doing other stuff instead of drilling on letters of the alphabet. But if the OP's child is advanced, I understand why Fundations would be unappealing. A child who already knows the sounds for each letter and basic phonetic combinations would be bored in Fundations.

I love how there's no way the DCPS can be more advanced than ITS. The DCPS curriculum is more rigorous because the kids are behind in DCPS; but the kids read later in ITS because they are more advanced.

BTW there was a broad range of reading/writing readiness in our DCPS class that did not correspond to race or SES.

The DCPS curriculum is more focused on phonics and reading intervention for kids who struggle. Other curricula may result in later reading, but that doesn't mean it's a less valid or "rigorous" a curriculum. It's just a different approach. If a child already reads, they don't need K to be a year of intense phonics. I don't know why the kids at ITS read later (or if that's even true), but the school has great test scores so whatever they're doing is probably working just fine.

No, DCPS K is more rigorous and reading/writing focus. That's why some people don't like it!! They want ITS *because* it's less pressured in K. People don't actually want more academics in early elementary; they want their kids to be around kids like them.

DCPS is more academic focused and if the academics are things OP's child has already mastered, what is the point of that? I thought Fundations was fine, because it helped my child learn to read. A child who reads already is not getting much out of it.

Well then don't pretend that she's switching to ITS for more "academics." Because ITS will surely be focusing on reading and writing, but later in K and 1st as compared to DCPS! how much MORE bored will this brilliant child be then, a whole year later? Come on.

It is for a different *style* of academics. And for a middle school that is way better than Brookland or Cardozo or whatever the OP currently has access to.

A different style - yeah, right! What OP wants is a more homogenous environment, filled with kids and teachers who don't feel any stress to push academics b/c they have the attitude "my [white/high SES] kid will be fine wherever". That may be true but don't pretend it's academics that are making you switch schools.

NP: First, if OP wants fewer worksheets or less Fundations in K, then, yes, that is about academics. Many early childhood experts believe that focusing on inquiry and building blocks early on leads to better academic outcomes later than diving deep into teaching reading and arithmetic at a desk at an early age.

Second, if you disagrees with you about what the best academic approach is, why do you care?! Find the curriculum that is best for your kid and do that. OP is moving from a DCPS to a charter school -- she's not doing something that denies you any opportunity (unless you are on the ITS waitlist just after her).

I just want people to be honest, and it really bothers me when they claim that such-and-such a DCPS is "not academic enough." What you want is LESS academics; not more. You don't think your kid NEEDS academics. That's the point. I call bullsh*t on "focusing on inquiry" anyway. What is that, in K? It's playing. Which is fine. If you want your child to play in K, I truly understand that. But don't claim you're switching schools for the challenge.

I do think playing can be more challenging than Fundations if the child can read already. DCPS is the worst of both worlds-- overly academic byt at a low level and not effectively differentiated. And for middle school, I would absolutely pick ITS over EOTP DCPS. Does anyone really dispute that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, it's K at ITS. That list has moved sooo fast, I was not mentally prepared for it.

The reason for the move is that DC is not being academically challenged right now. It's not because of too many black kids in the upper grades, it's because of hardly any high-performing kids in any grade and because I know her friends are leaving anyway. They are working on some pull-outs or whatever, but I know it's nowhere near the challenge that DC needs. I like the teacher but the group work is far below DC's level.

I'm not sure that we'll be thrilled with ITS as a middle school because it's such a small program, but I know it's a recently created program so we'll see how it grows. I would choose it over our IB middle school in a heartbeat.

I'm in a similar situation but chose IB over moving.

K was not an easy place for academic challenges because the school was not set up for it. K was just not that academically focused.

We're a few years into early elementary now and it keeps getting better. The school and teachers continue to get better at providing individualized work. There are also classmates who have stepped up their game. Not all kids develop at the same rate. Some who didn't do anything amazing academically in K are doing great now. Our IB also has really small class sizes, so that helps.

Thanks. Do you mind saying the school? I feel like our K is overly academically focused, but at a lower academic level than DC is at. DC has a reading pull-out but still, most of the morning is spent on Fundations type stuff that is age- and level-appropriate for most of the class but not for her.

fundations at our DCPS was right on target for my smart, white high SES K boy EOTP. And ITS is a FULL YEAR behind DCPS - I know because I compared notes with an ITS parent. this is 100% about you wanting your child in a more homogeneous class, and 0% about the actual curriculum.

Funny how ITS has way better test scores than Ward 5 IBs, then.

Sorry, but our IB pushes phonic so hard because a lot of the kids in K are behind where they should be. At a HRCS the kids may learn to read a little later because they have them doing other stuff instead of drilling on letters of the alphabet. But if the OP's child is advanced, I understand why Fundations would be unappealing. A child who already knows the sounds for each letter and basic phonetic combinations would be bored in Fundations.

I love how there's no way the DCPS can be more advanced than ITS. The DCPS curriculum is more rigorous because the kids are behind in DCPS; but the kids read later in ITS because they are more advanced.

BTW there was a broad range of reading/writing readiness in our DCPS class that did not correspond to race or SES.

The DCPS curriculum is more focused on phonics and reading intervention for kids who struggle. Other curricula may result in later reading, but that doesn't mean it's a less valid or "rigorous" a curriculum. It's just a different approach. If a child already reads, they don't need K to be a year of intense phonics. I don't know why the kids at ITS read later (or if that's even true), but the school has great test scores so whatever they're doing is probably working just fine.

No, DCPS K is more rigorous and reading/writing focus. That's why some people don't like it!! They want ITS *because* it's less pressured in K. People don't actually want more academics in early elementary; they want their kids to be around kids like them.

DCPS is more academic focused and if the academics are things OP's child has already mastered, what is the point of that? I thought Fundations was fine, because it helped my child learn to read. A child who reads already is not getting much out of it.

Well then don't pretend that she's switching to ITS for more "academics." Because ITS will surely be focusing on reading and writing, but later in K and 1st as compared to DCPS! how much MORE bored will this brilliant child be then, a whole year later? Come on.

It is for a different *style* of academics. And for a middle school that is way better than Brookland or Cardozo or whatever the OP currently has access to.

A different style - yeah, right! What OP wants is a more homogenous environment, filled with kids and teachers who don't feel any stress to push academics b/c they have the attitude "my [white/high SES] kid will be fine wherever". That may be true but don't pretend it's academics that are making you switch schools.

NP: First, if OP wants fewer worksheets or less Fundations in K, then, yes, that is about academics. Many early childhood experts believe that focusing on inquiry and building blocks early on leads to better academic outcomes later than diving deep into teaching reading and arithmetic at a desk at an early age.

Second, if you disagrees with you about what the best academic approach is, why do you care?! Find the curriculum that is best for your kid and do that. OP is moving from a DCPS to a charter school -- she's not doing something that denies you any opportunity (unless you are on the ITS waitlist just after her).

I just want people to be honest, and it really bothers me when they claim that such-and-such a DCPS is "not academic enough." What you want is LESS academics; not more. You don't think your kid NEEDS academics. That's the point. I call bullsh*t on "focusing on inquiry" anyway. What is that, in K? It's playing. Which is fine. If you want your child to play in K, I truly understand that. But don't claim you're switching schools for the challenge.

Go read the education researchers. You are dismissing something without knowing anything about it.

I'm not dismissing it; I'm saying that OP is specifically saying she wants "challenges" (presumably, academic challenges). Playing =/= academics. Had OP said "we are looking for a more child-centered, play-based approach for K, and then the possibility of a decent MS" I would have no quarrel. You're moving the goalposts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, it's K at ITS. That list has moved sooo fast, I was not mentally prepared for it.

The reason for the move is that DC is not being academically challenged right now. It's not because of too many black kids in the upper grades, it's because of hardly any high-performing kids in any grade and because I know her friends are leaving anyway. They are working on some pull-outs or whatever, but I know it's nowhere near the challenge that DC needs. I like the teacher but the group work is far below DC's level.

I'm not sure that we'll be thrilled with ITS as a middle school because it's such a small program, but I know it's a recently created program so we'll see how it grows. I would choose it over our IB middle school in a heartbeat.

I'm in a similar situation but chose IB over moving.

K was not an easy place for academic challenges because the school was not set up for it. K was just not that academically focused.

We're a few years into early elementary now and it keeps getting better. The school and teachers continue to get better at providing individualized work. There are also classmates who have stepped up their game. Not all kids develop at the same rate. Some who didn't do anything amazing academically in K are doing great now. Our IB also has really small class sizes, so that helps.

Thanks. Do you mind saying the school? I feel like our K is overly academically focused, but at a lower academic level than DC is at. DC has a reading pull-out but still, most of the morning is spent on Fundations type stuff that is age- and level-appropriate for most of the class but not for her.

fundations at our DCPS was right on target for my smart, white high SES K boy EOTP. And ITS is a FULL YEAR behind DCPS - I know because I compared notes with an ITS parent. this is 100% about you wanting your child in a more homogeneous class, and 0% about the actual curriculum.

Funny how ITS has way better test scores than Ward 5 IBs, then.

Sorry, but our IB pushes phonic so hard because a lot of the kids in K are behind where they should be. At a HRCS the kids may learn to read a little later because they have them doing other stuff instead of drilling on letters of the alphabet. But if the OP's child is advanced, I understand why Fundations would be unappealing. A child who already knows the sounds for each letter and basic phonetic combinations would be bored in Fundations.

I love how there's no way the DCPS can be more advanced than ITS. The DCPS curriculum is more rigorous because the kids are behind in DCPS; but the kids read later in ITS because they are more advanced.

BTW there was a broad range of reading/writing readiness in our DCPS class that did not correspond to race or SES.

The DCPS curriculum is more focused on phonics and reading intervention for kids who struggle. Other curricula may result in later reading, but that doesn't mean it's a less valid or "rigorous" a curriculum. It's just a different approach. If a child already reads, they don't need K to be a year of intense phonics. I don't know why the kids at ITS read later (or if that's even true), but the school has great test scores so whatever they're doing is probably working just fine.

No, DCPS K is more rigorous and reading/writing focus. That's why some people don't like it!! They want ITS *because* it's less pressured in K. People don't actually want more academics in early elementary; they want their kids to be around kids like them.

DCPS is more academic focused and if the academics are things OP's child has already mastered, what is the point of that? I thought Fundations was fine, because it helped my child learn to read. A child who reads already is not getting much out of it.

Well then don't pretend that she's switching to ITS for more "academics." Because ITS will surely be focusing on reading and writing, but later in K and 1st as compared to DCPS! how much MORE bored will this brilliant child be then, a whole year later? Come on.

It is for a different *style* of academics. And for a middle school that is way better than Brookland or Cardozo or whatever the OP currently has access to.

A different style - yeah, right! What OP wants is a more homogenous environment, filled with kids and teachers who don't feel any stress to push academics b/c they have the attitude "my [white/high SES] kid will be fine wherever". That may be true but don't pretend it's academics that are making you switch schools.

NP: First, if OP wants fewer worksheets or less Fundations in K, then, yes, that is about academics. Many early childhood experts believe that focusing on inquiry and building blocks early on leads to better academic outcomes later than diving deep into teaching reading and arithmetic at a desk at an early age.

Second, if you disagrees with you about what the best academic approach is, why do you care?! Find the curriculum that is best for your kid and do that. OP is moving from a DCPS to a charter school -- she's not doing something that denies you any opportunity (unless you are on the ITS waitlist just after her).

I just want people to be honest, and it really bothers me when they claim that such-and-such a DCPS is "not academic enough." What you want is LESS academics; not more. You don't think your kid NEEDS academics. That's the point. I call bullsh*t on "focusing on inquiry" anyway. What is that, in K? It's playing. Which is fine. If you want your child to play in K, I truly understand that. But don't claim you're switching schools for the challenge.

I do think playing can be more challenging than Fundations if the child can read already. DCPS is the worst of both worlds-- overly academic byt at a low level and not effectively differentiated. And for middle school, I would absolutely pick ITS over EOTP DCPS. Does anyone really dispute that?

Our DCPS was *excellent* at teaching my very bright K student and all of his classmates of mixed race & income level to read and write. It was very effectively differentiated, and not at a low level. I have no view on middle school, since that's far away. But as for K - anyone who says DCPS K is not "academic" is lying. What they really mean is that they don't WANT/don't think they NEED academics in K. Which is fine - but admit that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, it's K at ITS. That list has moved sooo fast, I was not mentally prepared for it.

The reason for the move is that DC is not being academically challenged right now. It's not because of too many black kids in the upper grades, it's because of hardly any high-performing kids in any grade and because I know her friends are leaving anyway. They are working on some pull-outs or whatever, but I know it's nowhere near the challenge that DC needs. I like the teacher but the group work is far below DC's level.

I'm not sure that we'll be thrilled with ITS as a middle school because it's such a small program, but I know it's a recently created program so we'll see how it grows. I would choose it over our IB middle school in a heartbeat.

I'm in a similar situation but chose IB over moving.

K was not an easy place for academic challenges because the school was not set up for it. K was just not that academically focused.

We're a few years into early elementary now and it keeps getting better. The school and teachers continue to get better at providing individualized work. There are also classmates who have stepped up their game. Not all kids develop at the same rate. Some who didn't do anything amazing academically in K are doing great now. Our IB also has really small class sizes, so that helps.

Thanks. Do you mind saying the school? I feel like our K is overly academically focused, but at a lower academic level than DC is at. DC has a reading pull-out but still, most of the morning is spent on Fundations type stuff that is age- and level-appropriate for most of the class but not for her.

fundations at our DCPS was right on target for my smart, white high SES K boy EOTP. And ITS is a FULL YEAR behind DCPS - I know because I compared notes with an ITS parent. this is 100% about you wanting your child in a more homogeneous class, and 0% about the actual curriculum.

Funny how ITS has way better test scores than Ward 5 IBs, then.

Sorry, but our IB pushes phonic so hard because a lot of the kids in K are behind where they should be. At a HRCS the kids may learn to read a little later because they have them doing other stuff instead of drilling on letters of the alphabet. But if the OP's child is advanced, I understand why Fundations would be unappealing. A child who already knows the sounds for each letter and basic phonetic combinations would be bored in Fundations.

I love how there's no way the DCPS can be more advanced than ITS. The DCPS curriculum is more rigorous because the kids are behind in DCPS; but the kids read later in ITS because they are more advanced.

BTW there was a broad range of reading/writing readiness in our DCPS class that did not correspond to race or SES.

The DCPS curriculum is more focused on phonics and reading intervention for kids who struggle. Other curricula may result in later reading, but that doesn't mean it's a less valid or "rigorous" a curriculum. It's just a different approach. If a child already reads, they don't need K to be a year of intense phonics. I don't know why the kids at ITS read later (or if that's even true), but the school has great test scores so whatever they're doing is probably working just fine.

No, DCPS K is more rigorous and reading/writing focus. That's why some people don't like it!! They want ITS *because* it's less pressured in K. People don't actually want more academics in early elementary; they want their kids to be around kids like them.

DCPS is more academic focused and if the academics are things OP's child has already mastered, what is the point of that? I thought Fundations was fine, because it helped my child learn to read. A child who reads already is not getting much out of it.

Well then don't pretend that she's switching to ITS for more "academics." Because ITS will surely be focusing on reading and writing, but later in K and 1st as compared to DCPS! how much MORE bored will this brilliant child be then, a whole year later? Come on.

It is for a different *style* of academics. And for a middle school that is way better than Brookland or Cardozo or whatever the OP currently has access to.

A different style - yeah, right! What OP wants is a more homogenous environment, filled with kids and teachers who don't feel any stress to push academics b/c they have the attitude "my [white/high SES] kid will be fine wherever". That may be true but don't pretend it's academics that are making you switch schools.

NP: First, if OP wants fewer worksheets or less Fundations in K, then, yes, that is about academics. Many early childhood experts believe that focusing on inquiry and building blocks early on leads to better academic outcomes later than diving deep into teaching reading and arithmetic at a desk at an early age.

Second, if you disagrees with you about what the best academic approach is, why do you care?! Find the curriculum that is best for your kid and do that. OP is moving from a DCPS to a charter school -- she's not doing something that denies you any opportunity (unless you are on the ITS waitlist just after her).

I just want people to be honest, and it really bothers me when they claim that such-and-such a DCPS is "not academic enough." What you want is LESS academics; not more. You don't think your kid NEEDS academics. That's the point. I call bullsh*t on "focusing on inquiry" anyway. What is that, in K? It's playing. Which is fine. If you want your child to play in K, I truly understand that. But don't claim you're switching schools for the challenge.

I do think playing can be more challenging than Fundations if the child can read already. DCPS is the worst of both worlds-- overly academic byt at a low level and not effectively differentiated. And for middle school, I would absolutely pick ITS over EOTP DCPS. Does anyone really dispute that?

Our DCPS was *excellent* at teaching my very bright K student and all of his classmates of mixed race & income level to read and write. It was very effectively differentiated, and not at a low level. I have no view on middle school, since that's far away. But as for K - anyone who says DCPS K is not "academic" is lying. What they really mean is that they don't WANT/don't think they NEED academics in K. Which is fine - but admit that.

Or maybe your DCPS is one school and the OP's DCPS is another thay doesn't handle this as well!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, it's K at ITS. That list has moved sooo fast, I was not mentally prepared for it.

The reason for the move is that DC is not being academically challenged right now. It's not because of too many black kids in the upper grades, it's because of hardly any high-performing kids in any grade and because I know her friends are leaving anyway. They are working on some pull-outs or whatever, but I know it's nowhere near the challenge that DC needs. I like the teacher but the group work is far below DC's level.

I'm not sure that we'll be thrilled with ITS as a middle school because it's such a small program, but I know it's a recently created program so we'll see how it grows. I would choose it over our IB middle school in a heartbeat.

I'm in a similar situation but chose IB over moving.

K was not an easy place for academic challenges because the school was not set up for it. K was just not that academically focused.

We're a few years into early elementary now and it keeps getting better. The school and teachers continue to get better at providing individualized work. There are also classmates who have stepped up their game. Not all kids develop at the same rate. Some who didn't do anything amazing academically in K are doing great now. Our IB also has really small class sizes, so that helps.

Thanks. Do you mind saying the school? I feel like our K is overly academically focused, but at a lower academic level than DC is at. DC has a reading pull-out but still, most of the morning is spent on Fundations type stuff that is age- and level-appropriate for most of the class but not for her.

fundations at our DCPS was right on target for my smart, white high SES K boy EOTP. And ITS is a FULL YEAR behind DCPS - I know because I compared notes with an ITS parent. this is 100% about you wanting your child in a more homogeneous class, and 0% about the actual curriculum.

Funny how ITS has way better test scores than Ward 5 IBs, then.

Sorry, but our IB pushes phonic so hard because a lot of the kids in K are behind where they should be. At a HRCS the kids may learn to read a little later because they have them doing other stuff instead of drilling on letters of the alphabet. But if the OP's child is advanced, I understand why Fundations would be unappealing. A child who already knows the sounds for each letter and basic phonetic combinations would be bored in Fundations.

I love how there's no way the DCPS can be more advanced than ITS. The DCPS curriculum is more rigorous because the kids are behind in DCPS; but the kids read later in ITS because they are more advanced.

BTW there was a broad range of reading/writing readiness in our DCPS class that did not correspond to race or SES.

The DCPS curriculum is more focused on phonics and reading intervention for kids who struggle. Other curricula may result in later reading, but that doesn't mean it's a less valid or "rigorous" a curriculum. It's just a different approach. If a child already reads, they don't need K to be a year of intense phonics. I don't know why the kids at ITS read later (or if that's even true), but the school has great test scores so whatever they're doing is probably working just fine.

No, DCPS K is more rigorous and reading/writing focus. That's why some people don't like it!! They want ITS *because* it's less pressured in K. People don't actually want more academics in early elementary; they want their kids to be around kids like them.

DCPS is more academic focused and if the academics are things OP's child has already mastered, what is the point of that? I thought Fundations was fine, because it helped my child learn to read. A child who reads already is not getting much out of it.

Well then don't pretend that she's switching to ITS for more "academics." Because ITS will surely be focusing on reading and writing, but later in K and 1st as compared to DCPS! how much MORE bored will this brilliant child be then, a whole year later? Come on.

It is for a different *style* of academics. And for a middle school that is way better than Brookland or Cardozo or whatever the OP currently has access to.

A different style - yeah, right! What OP wants is a more homogenous environment, filled with kids and teachers who don't feel any stress to push academics b/c they have the attitude "my [white/high SES] kid will be fine wherever". That may be true but don't pretend it's academics that are making you switch schools.

NP: First, if OP wants fewer worksheets or less Fundations in K, then, yes, that is about academics. Many early childhood experts believe that focusing on inquiry and building blocks early on leads to better academic outcomes later than diving deep into teaching reading and arithmetic at a desk at an early age.

Second, if you disagrees with you about what the best academic approach is, why do you care?! Find the curriculum that is best for your kid and do that. OP is moving from a DCPS to a charter school -- she's not doing something that denies you any opportunity (unless you are on the ITS waitlist just after her).

I just want people to be honest, and it really bothers me when they claim that such-and-such a DCPS is "not academic enough." What you want is LESS academics; not more. You don't think your kid NEEDS academics. That's the point. I call bullsh*t on "focusing on inquiry" anyway. What is that, in K? It's playing. Which is fine. If you want your child to play in K, I truly understand that. But don't claim you're switching schools for the challenge.

Go read the education researchers. You are dismissing something without knowing anything about it.

I'm not dismissing it; I'm saying that OP is specifically saying she wants "challenges" (presumably, academic challenges). Playing =/= academics. Had OP said "we are looking for a more child-centered, play-based approach for K, and then the possibility of a decent MS" I would have no quarrel. You're moving the goalposts.

Why "presumably" academic challenges? And why does that necessarily mean rote phonics skills? Why is it not reasonable to say: if they're going to focus on rote phonics, then I want something beyond letters in K? My kid is bored and hates it. If not, then I'm OK with a different approach -- even if it looks outwardly less academic -- because it may hopefully challenge my kid in some way, which learning one letter each week as an already-reading Ker does not? People here are just picking a fight for no reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What parents wouldn't try to move her kids to a school with less poverty? white or black. Y'all are being really dumb piling on the OP.

OP said her kindergarten child, in her 2nd week of school, is not being challenged academically. If you don't call out BS when you see it, you are part of the problem.

NP here but I can see that being an issue. My K kid is showing me worksheets where they practice one letter at a time? She is bored. What Kinder kid doesn't already know the alphabet and how to write letters? We were given a list of sight words to practice over the summer too which my kid learned. It seems more appropriate for PK3 or PK4. I am going to give it a few more months to see if it picks up. But its a Title 1 school so we may already be seeing the gap in learning at this age.

For what it’s worth my K kid is at a school that is consistently praised on this board (not JKLM but similar enough) and is coming home with these same worksheets. She has been able to write all the letters for a couple years now so it does seem overly basic. But the fact that so many are reporting the same thing (and overall I feel great about her teacher and school) makes me think it’s standard beginning of school stuff/ establishing a baseline and it seems premature to jump to conclusions based on a week 3 worksheet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What parents wouldn't try to move her kids to a school with less poverty? white or black. Y'all are being really dumb piling on the OP.

OP said her kindergarten child, in her 2nd week of school, is not being challenged academically. If you don't call out BS when you see it, you are part of the problem.

NP here but I can see that being an issue. My K kid is showing me worksheets where they practice one letter at a time? She is bored. What Kinder kid doesn't already know the alphabet and how to write letters? We were given a list of sight words to practice over the summer too which my kid learned. It seems more appropriate for PK3 or PK4. I am going to give it a few more months to see if it picks up. But its a Title 1 school so we may already be seeing the gap in learning at this age.

For what it’s worth my K kid is at a school that is consistently praised on this board (not JKLM but similar enough) and is coming home with these same worksheets. She has been able to write all the letters for a couple years now so it does seem overly basic. But the fact that so many are reporting the same thing (and overall I feel great about her teacher and school) makes me think it’s standard beginning of school stuff/ establishing a baseline and it seems premature to jump to conclusions based on a week 3 worksheet.

Exactly. And, if it's Fundations, I would suggest you learn more about the actual program. It's not just "tracing letters" or even just writing them individually; it's a lot more than that. Plus, with recess, specials, snack time, etc ... it's really not like the kids are writing letters over and over all day. The worksheets just happen to be what parents see the most of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, it's K at ITS. That list has moved sooo fast, I was not mentally prepared for it.

The reason for the move is that DC is not being academically challenged right now. It's not because of too many black kids in the upper grades, it's because of hardly any high-performing kids in any grade and because I know her friends are leaving anyway. They are working on some pull-outs or whatever, but I know it's nowhere near the challenge that DC needs. I like the teacher but the group work is far below DC's level.

I'm not sure that we'll be thrilled with ITS as a middle school because it's such a small program, but I know it's a recently created program so we'll see how it grows. I would choose it over our IB middle school in a heartbeat.

I'm in a similar situation but chose IB over moving.

K was not an easy place for academic challenges because the school was not set up for it. K was just not that academically focused.

We're a few years into early elementary now and it keeps getting better. The school and teachers continue to get better at providing individualized work. There are also classmates who have stepped up their game. Not all kids develop at the same rate. Some who didn't do anything amazing academically in K are doing great now. Our IB also has really small class sizes, so that helps.

Thanks. Do you mind saying the school? I feel like our K is overly academically focused, but at a lower academic level than DC is at. DC has a reading pull-out but still, most of the morning is spent on Fundations type stuff that is age- and level-appropriate for most of the class but not for her.

fundations at our DCPS was right on target for my smart, white high SES K boy EOTP. And ITS is a FULL YEAR behind DCPS - I know because I compared notes with an ITS parent. this is 100% about you wanting your child in a more homogeneous class, and 0% about the actual curriculum.

Funny how ITS has way better test scores than Ward 5 IBs, then.

Sorry, but our IB pushes phonic so hard because a lot of the kids in K are behind where they should be. At a HRCS the kids may learn to read a little later because they have them doing other stuff instead of drilling on letters of the alphabet. But if the OP's child is advanced, I understand why Fundations would be unappealing. A child who already knows the sounds for each letter and basic phonetic combinations would be bored in Fundations.

I love how there's no way the DCPS can be more advanced than ITS. The DCPS curriculum is more rigorous because the kids are behind in DCPS; but the kids read later in ITS because they are more advanced.

BTW there was a broad range of reading/writing readiness in our DCPS class that did not correspond to race or SES.

The DCPS curriculum is more focused on phonics and reading intervention for kids who struggle. Other curricula may result in later reading, but that doesn't mean it's a less valid or "rigorous" a curriculum. It's just a different approach. If a child already reads, they don't need K to be a year of intense phonics. I don't know why the kids at ITS read later (or if that's even true), but the school has great test scores so whatever they're doing is probably working just fine.

No, DCPS K is more rigorous and reading/writing focus. That's why some people don't like it!! They want ITS *because* it's less pressured in K. People don't actually want more academics in early elementary; they want their kids to be around kids like them.

DCPS is more academic focused and if the academics are things OP's child has already mastered, what is the point of that? I thought Fundations was fine, because it helped my child learn to read. A child who reads already is not getting much out of it.

Well then don't pretend that she's switching to ITS for more "academics." Because ITS will surely be focusing on reading and writing, but later in K and 1st as compared to DCPS! how much MORE bored will this brilliant child be then, a whole year later? Come on.

It is for a different *style* of academics. And for a middle school that is way better than Brookland or Cardozo or whatever the OP currently has access to.

A different style - yeah, right! What OP wants is a more homogenous environment, filled with kids and teachers who don't feel any stress to push academics b/c they have the attitude "my [white/high SES] kid will be fine wherever". That may be true but don't pretend it's academics that are making you switch schools.

NP: First, if OP wants fewer worksheets or less Fundations in K, then, yes, that is about academics. Many early childhood experts believe that focusing on inquiry and building blocks early on leads to better academic outcomes later than diving deep into teaching reading and arithmetic at a desk at an early age.

Second, if you disagrees with you about what the best academic approach is, why do you care?! Find the curriculum that is best for your kid and do that. OP is moving from a DCPS to a charter school -- she's not doing something that denies you any opportunity (unless you are on the ITS waitlist just after her).

I just want people to be honest, and it really bothers me when they claim that such-and-such a DCPS is "not academic enough." What you want is LESS academics; not more. You don't think your kid NEEDS academics. That's the point. I call bullsh*t on "focusing on inquiry" anyway. What is that, in K? It's playing. Which is fine. If you want your child to play in K, I truly understand that. But don't claim you're switching schools for the challenge.

Go read the education researchers. You are dismissing something without knowing anything about it.

I'm not dismissing it; I'm saying that OP is specifically saying she wants "challenges" (presumably, academic challenges). Playing =/= academics. Had OP said "we are looking for a more child-centered, play-based approach for K, and then the possibility of a decent MS" I would have no quarrel. You're moving the goalposts.

Why "presumably" academic challenges? And why does that necessarily mean rote phonics skills? Why is it not reasonable to say: if they're going to focus on rote phonics, then I want something beyond letters in K? My kid is bored and hates it. If not, then I'm OK with a different approach -- even if it looks outwardly less academic -- because it may hopefully challenge my kid in some way, which learning one letter each week as an already-reading Ker does not? People here are just picking a fight for no reason.

Well, what are you going to do in 1st grade when your progressive school actually starts to teach phonics? Or do you just think there should be no phonics at all? Kids DO have to be taught to read and write in K and 1st at some point. If you think that's beneath your child, or that they don't need any direct instruction at all, then you may want to home school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, it's K at ITS. That list has moved sooo fast, I was not mentally prepared for it.

The reason for the move is that DC is not being academically challenged right now. It's not because of too many black kids in the upper grades, it's because of hardly any high-performing kids in any grade and because I know her friends are leaving anyway. They are working on some pull-outs or whatever, but I know it's nowhere near the challenge that DC needs. I like the teacher but the group work is far below DC's level.

I'm not sure that we'll be thrilled with ITS as a middle school because it's such a small program, but I know it's a recently created program so we'll see how it grows. I would choose it over our IB middle school in a heartbeat.

I'm in a similar situation but chose IB over moving.

K was not an easy place for academic challenges because the school was not set up for it. K was just not that academically focused.

We're a few years into early elementary now and it keeps getting better. The school and teachers continue to get better at providing individualized work. There are also classmates who have stepped up their game. Not all kids develop at the same rate. Some who didn't do anything amazing academically in K are doing great now. Our IB also has really small class sizes, so that helps.

Thanks. Do you mind saying the school? I feel like our K is overly academically focused, but at a lower academic level than DC is at. DC has a reading pull-out but still, most of the morning is spent on Fundations type stuff that is age- and level-appropriate for most of the class but not for her.

fundations at our DCPS was right on target for my smart, white high SES K boy EOTP. And ITS is a FULL YEAR behind DCPS - I know because I compared notes with an ITS parent. this is 100% about you wanting your child in a more homogeneous class, and 0% about the actual curriculum.

Funny how ITS has way better test scores than Ward 5 IBs, then.

Sorry, but our IB pushes phonic so hard because a lot of the kids in K are behind where they should be. At a HRCS the kids may learn to read a little later because they have them doing other stuff instead of drilling on letters of the alphabet. But if the OP's child is advanced, I understand why Fundations would be unappealing. A child who already knows the sounds for each letter and basic phonetic combinations would be bored in Fundations.

I love how there's no way the DCPS can be more advanced than ITS. The DCPS curriculum is more rigorous because the kids are behind in DCPS; but the kids read later in ITS because they are more advanced.

BTW there was a broad range of reading/writing readiness in our DCPS class that did not correspond to race or SES.

The DCPS curriculum is more focused on phonics and reading intervention for kids who struggle. Other curricula may result in later reading, but that doesn't mean it's a less valid or "rigorous" a curriculum. It's just a different approach. If a child already reads, they don't need K to be a year of intense phonics. I don't know why the kids at ITS read later (or if that's even true), but the school has great test scores so whatever they're doing is probably working just fine.

No, DCPS K is more rigorous and reading/writing focus. That's why some people don't like it!! They want ITS *because* it's less pressured in K. People don't actually want more academics in early elementary; they want their kids to be around kids like them.

DCPS is more academic focused and if the academics are things OP's child has already mastered, what is the point of that? I thought Fundations was fine, because it helped my child learn to read. A child who reads already is not getting much out of it.

Well then don't pretend that she's switching to ITS for more "academics." Because ITS will surely be focusing on reading and writing, but later in K and 1st as compared to DCPS! how much MORE bored will this brilliant child be then, a whole year later? Come on.

It is for a different *style* of academics. And for a middle school that is way better than Brookland or Cardozo or whatever the OP currently has access to.

A different style - yeah, right! What OP wants is a more homogenous environment, filled with kids and teachers who don't feel any stress to push academics b/c they have the attitude "my [white/high SES] kid will be fine wherever". That may be true but don't pretend it's academics that are making you switch schools.

NP: First, if OP wants fewer worksheets or less Fundations in K, then, yes, that is about academics. Many early childhood experts believe that focusing on inquiry and building blocks early on leads to better academic outcomes later than diving deep into teaching reading and arithmetic at a desk at an early age.

Second, if you disagrees with you about what the best academic approach is, why do you care?! Find the curriculum that is best for your kid and do that. OP is moving from a DCPS to a charter school -- she's not doing something that denies you any opportunity (unless you are on the ITS waitlist just after her).

I just want people to be honest, and it really bothers me when they claim that such-and-such a DCPS is "not academic enough." What you want is LESS academics; not more. You don't think your kid NEEDS academics. That's the point. I call bullsh*t on "focusing on inquiry" anyway. What is that, in K? It's playing. Which is fine. If you want your child to play in K, I truly understand that. But don't claim you're switching schools for the challenge.

Go read the education researchers. You are dismissing something without knowing anything about it.

I'm not dismissing it; I'm saying that OP is specifically saying she wants "challenges" (presumably, academic challenges). Playing =/= academics. Had OP said "we are looking for a more child-centered, play-based approach for K, and then the possibility of a decent MS" I would have no quarrel. You're moving the goalposts.

Why "presumably" academic challenges? And why does that necessarily mean rote phonics skills? Why is it not reasonable to say: if they're going to focus on rote phonics, then I want something beyond letters in K? My kid is bored and hates it. If not, then I'm OK with a different approach -- even if it looks outwardly less academic -- because it may hopefully challenge my kid in some way, which learning one letter each week as an already-reading Ker does not? People here are just picking a fight for no reason.

Well, what are you going to do in 1st grade when your progressive school actually starts to teach phonics? Or do you just think there should be no phonics at all? Kids DO have to be taught to read and write in K and 1st at some point. If you think that's beneath your child, or that they don't need any direct instruction at all, then you may want to home school.

I think that the better ratio and higher-performing kids will result in an appropriate reading group. Not like at our current school. And that the classwide work will be closer to her level as well and generally more advanced.

Also, guys, it is done. We told her, she cried, she reluctantly switched today. I feel sad too, but it is a done deal.

[Anonymous]

NP here- I hope she has an awesome day and adjusts quickly!