Why are academics frowned upon?

[Anonymous]

Little mystified by our school tours. We've visited GDS, Sidwell, Beauvoir, Maret. All tell us that the kids are learning to learn (or some variation of this phrase) which in effect seems to mean that they'll be taught nothing for a year or two. The schools seem quite proud of this. GDS is particular has their head of school jovially describing how we should not expect our children to be taught reading in PK and K. WTF? Sidwell refuses to even discuss science, then it turns out that it isn't offered in the early grades. Beauvoir carries on about Jolly Phonics. My kid knows her letter sounds and is starting to read, what is she supposed to do while the other children sit through fancy ways of learning that S makes a hissing sound? The lack of focus on encouraging a sound math education is equally striking. If you don't teach children any math, they certainly do end up weak in math skills.

I want a sound education, creativity, and learning to learn. Are these things as mutually exclusive as these school administrators and parent volunteers claim? Why should our children not be taught when they are capable and ready to learn? I realize that we can go to a local ES for academics, but then they won't get music, PE, etc. This is a truly bizarre choice and for $30,000 there should be a better one out there. Where is the balanced school that strives for early academic excellence and plenty of critical thinking and fostering of creativity?

[Anonymous]

Why don't you send your child to public ES where she/he will be taught to read in K if that's what you want? They do have art, music, etc in public school but maybe not as frequently as in private (usually once a week for each special). The privates are known for a more developmentally appropriate K but they really hit the academics hard after that.

[Anonymous]

Yep, that's why we pulled our kids out of such a school after spending practically $100,000 on their P-2 education. Sent them to a catholic school with a more traditional curriculum. Took me a long time to realize the emperor doesn't have any clothes on at some of these "prestigious" schools, or to put it more generously, that they don't offer what we are looking for.

[Anonymous]

The more I hear about the early years curricula at the elite schools around here, the more I am SO thankful we were elsewhere at a great public for those years.

[Anonymous]

OP here again. We don't want a religious school, are there any rigorous and yet well-balanced schools out there that aren't religious? Also, to answer another poster, we may end up at our local ES but we are genuinely looking for balance. Academic rigor with plenty of room for creativity and critical thinking. We don't think the local schools have the latter; it doesn't seem the top private schools have the former. At least not in the early grades. They are so darn proud of not teaching anything. It takes my breath away.

[Anonymous]

Have you heard of the Core Knowledge schools?

http://coreknowledge.org/CK/index.htm

[Anonymous]

We have been very pleased with the academics at our private school. While the kids are not "taught to read" in their pre-K class, there is a lot of work with letters and numbers, and in fact, many of the kids DO read by the end of the school year. It is simply the approach.

Similarly with math, they work in number concepts etc, but do not memorize multiplication tables etc.

I think you might be misinterpreting the message from these schools. Your child is no different than what exists at these schools, however the foundational approach in the classroom and the sheer joy of the kids at learning without the rote aspects of it are priceless.

You have to choose what you think is best for your child, but I do not think you are understanding the approach in these schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have been very pleased with the academics at our private school. While the kids are not "taught to read" in their pre-K class, there is a lot of work with letters and numbers, and in fact, many of the kids DO read by the end of the school year. It is simply the approach.

Similarly with math, they work in number concepts etc, but do not memorize multiplication tables etc.

I think you might be misinterpreting the message from these schools. Your child is no different than what exists at these schools, however the foundational approach in the classroom and the sheer joy of the kids at learning without the rote aspects of it are priceless.

You have to choose what you think is best for your child, but I do not think you are understanding the approach in these schools.

My understanding is that the british school has a more academic approach but I do not know this for a fact. It might be worth a visit or others here might have more info.

[Anonymous]

At some of the top private schools there is a sense that kids will be from families that focus on academics. So it eases things up a bit for the administration to act like it doesn't matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Little mystified by our school tours. We've visited GDS, Sidwell, Beauvoir, Maret. All tell us that the kids are learning to learn (or some variation of this phrase) which in effect seems to mean that they'll be taught nothing for a year or two. The schools seem quite proud of this. GDS is particular has their head of school jovially describing how we should not expect our children to be taught reading in PK and K. WTF? Sidwell refuses to even discuss science, then it turns out that it isn't offered in the early grades. Beauvoir carries on about Jolly Phonics. My kid knows her letter sounds and is starting to read, what is she supposed to do while the other children sit through fancy ways of learning that S makes a hissing sound? The lack of focus on encouraging a sound math education is equally striking. If you don't teach children any math, they certainly do end up weak in math skills.

I want a sound education, creativity, and learning to learn. Are these things as mutually exclusive as these school administrators and parent volunteers claim? Why should our children not be taught when they are capable and ready to learn? I realize that we can go to a local ES for academics, but then they won't get music, PE, etc. This is a truly bizarre choice and for $30,000 there should be a better one out there. Where is the balanced school that strives for early academic excellence and plenty of critical thinking and fostering of creativity?

I think, OP, that educational theories have changed quite a bit since the time that we were in school. The early years of a child's education in a progressive environment are going to be very different from traditional book learning. This does not mean that in the end, the children do not learn how to read, facts, or multiplication tables. The early years of creative play are intended to foster the intellectual and social skills that are the foundation for learning both inside and outside the classroom. This means that children are encouraged to observe the world around them in creative ways, to ask questions in a structured way, to organize information, to ask further questions, and to articulate this chain of observation and reasoning. The children do learn how to do mechanical things, like write, through a variety of small motor skills tasks (drawing, painting, beading, clay formation, etc.) and they learn how to count things and group things (usually as part of the observation process). Books are introduced as part of the process--I am willing to bet, for example, that many kindergarten classrooms on Monday are going to do a lot of fun activities about snow, and also read a few books about it. While "formal" science is not going to be a part of the day, good teachers will get students to start thinking like scientists by asking them 1) what they observed (color, temperature, how much, etc.?) and 2) introducing the idea of the hypothesis 1) If you put snow in your hand, what will happen?

To the untrained eye, these activities that look like play don't look like learning, but they are indeed being taught by teachers who know how to guide children through this processes of observation, questioning, categorizing, and articulating. It's much more fun for the children, and it instills a strong sense of love of school.

[Anonymous]

What are the curricula used at the Big3 and top privates for preschool and PK?

[Anonymous]

What exactly are you looking for in pre-K or Kindergarten? These schools are teaching developmentally appropriate curriculum. The children in those classes are indeed learning - through play. That's exactly as it should be. Would you honestly prefer that your five-year-old sit at a desk and do worksheets or have facts drilled into their heads? What advantage do you think this gives them? I do not understand this mindset.

[Anonymous]

Would you honestly prefer that your five-year-old sit at a desk and do worksheets or have facts drilled into their heads?

No one has suggested this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What exactly are you looking for in pre-K or Kindergarten? These schools are teaching developmentally appropriate curriculum. The children in those classes are indeed learning - through play. That's exactly as it should be. Would you honestly prefer that your five-year-old sit at a desk and do worksheets or have facts drilled into their heads? What advantage do you think this gives them? I do not understand this mindset.

I don't think anyone wants this. What OP is concerned about is what her child needs - if her kid is ready to learn how to read, why would it be inappropriate to expect that the teachers meet her child's needs? It seems to me that one of the main advantages of going private is that your kid gets some individualized attention. So you just have to accept that its a "play-based" curriculum and there is no flexibility?

[Anonymous]

OP I agree with you mostly.
The progressives and reformists have gone too far. It is nice for kids to take an interest in what they are learning, but that takes a lot of time, and you can waste valuable time getting them to feel the math. If you think those schools are bad, take a look at Green Acres. Nice school, but way too much progressive for me. I wish that they would just limit it to certain subjects like science, history, foreign languages, and social studies, that lend themselves more to that approach.

Don't get me going on the math.

Memorization is a bad word among the elite for some strange reason. The schools are actually trying to should light and airy. A fad.

I disagree with your comment on Jolly Phonics. It may have been presented in a flaky way, but it is an excellent curriculum. I am not sure how B uses it, but it is supposed to be presented rapidly, as suggested by the developers of synthetic phonics. You should google the research in England about that. I actually wish it were used in more private schools, since it has such a great impact on long term reading skills.