
OP, respectfully, I think you need to chill out a little. MOST of the kids entering preK at private schools know their letter sounds, and a good number of them are starting to read, so your child will be in good company. Your child won't be bored to tears while the others learn the sound an "S" makes, because most of the kids will already know this. As others have pointed out, it's not that letters and math won't be part of the approach, but rather that the schools are not going to make "learning to read" their primary focus, as some (not all) public schools do in preK and K. |
Maybe I'm not understanding OP's comments. Below are links to the curricula for three of the schools, and they all seem fairly academic, at least as academic as is reasonable for 5 and 6 year olds. I see science, reading, and math here. I'm not sure why you'd think "they'll be taught nothing for a year or two."
http://www.beauvoirschool.org/podium/default.aspx?t=22709 http://www.gds.org/podium/default.aspx?t=122876 http://www.sidwell.edu/lower_school/academics/index.aspx |
Look at all the threads about age for admission and June as a late birthday (absurd). It is precisely because activities that are a better fit for ever so lightly older children have been pushed down to kindergarten, that people are now in a panic trying to have their children be the oldest in the class. The point of developmentally appropriate curricula is not to deprive your child of facts, but to give your child the opportunity to develop the skills to USE those facts. If you can't use those facts, there's not much point in knowing them. Most of the kids in the schools you mentioned are smart and have a pretty broad range of factual information. They won't become stagnant in those schools; they'll grow. BTW - there's a lovely science room at Sidwell's lower school. No, it is not a focus of the curriculum there, but it does exist. |
Studies have demonstrated that play teaches children how to think creatively and problem-solve and that they do better ultimately from having had lots of play than children who are taught to read early and go to more academic schools. I have a teenager who went to Beauvoir who is a highly intelligent, successful student. he loves to learn. Isn't that what you want from a school? |
But some schools take this too far. |
Which schools? I don't know any school which is EXCLUSIVELY play in prek and k. And frankly, what is play if not learning? I can understand being upset if all you see is a bunch of teachers watching kids playing on the playground. But a lot of school playing is educational. |
OP here. I guess my question is whether this needs to be an either-or situation. |
OP: Are your initials BP by any chance? Just a wild guess! ![]() |
I am a teacher at one of the schools mentioned on this board. I can tell you that many students already come to my class knowing their letters and numbers. We still are going to review and talk about them for the students who may not know them. If your student can read, I will encourage them to read. I will also work with them on letter formation and writing.
As for math, I teach math on a daily basis. We play fun games and have activities for students to complete. Academic rigor in pre-kindergarten or kindergarten should look different in the early grades. No one is going to not teach your child for two years. If that were the case, students wouldn't be successful in the older grades. I think good private schools are trying to get parents to calm down. All of the schools have a developmentally appropriate curriculum taught by teachers who are well trained and have advanced degrees in their field. Parents need to learn to trust that. |
That is not DCUM appropriate. |
I agree fully. They just don't want to use the word rigor at all, ever. |
I think the rub, at least for us, was spending so much money to send our kids to school to "bead" and "paint," while they learned to read and write at home. It just seemed like an incredible waste of money. And let's be honest: as people are admitting on another thread, we're really spending for the early years primarily to ensure that the kids have a spot in a "prestigious" school in the upper grades. What a racket! I would also point out that a lot of the "play" projects that are supposed to help with fine motor skills are more suited to girls than boys. My guys were much happier just practicing their letters and learning their math facts and then going outside to play football, which is what they did when they moved to an all boys' school, rather than the endless art projects that were supposed to "teach them through play." |
My DD went to Beauvoir and we never supplemented. She learned to read in 1st grade and is now an A student in upper school at NCS. Everyone needs to relax. They actually know what they are doing, it isn't random. And if it bother you so much, send your child to a montessori where he will learn to read in preschool. Not that it will help him any down the road. |
This is not what montessori is about. |
I don't see why you call it a racket. The schools don't say, "Come to our crummy lower schools. We'll take your money and babysit your kids." They set up programs which they believe are the best way to teach young children, and to set them up for success in very rigorous high school programs. If their beliefs match yours, that's great. If they don't, send your kids somewhere else for the early years (that's what we did). If you send your kids for lower school while believing that it is a racket, that's a decision you make too. |