It's kind of like "we don't teach to the test"-- best case scenario is that it's a good thing, worst case scenario is that it's cope to explain why the kids don't score well.

It's also something parents say when they feel their kid needs a lower pressure setting. Sometimes they just like that for philosophical or cultural reasons, other times it's because of special needs, other times it's because they are in denial of special needs and want to stay in denial.

Anonymous wrote:Uh, lots of kids are curious and love learning in all manner of different schools.

The tradeoff IMO is being so far behind in math that it's hard to catch up, so you're shut out of certain high school courses and opportunities, and don't have as good a transcript. K-8s may view this as not their problem, but it's still the kid's problem.

The tradeoff for younger kids is that while many of them catch up, others don't and any serious learning issue may go unnoticed because expectations are so low.

In general, low academic standards open the door to ineffective teaching being tolerated. A great teacher can make sure the kids learn a lot, but these approaches do allow for poor teaching to be acceptable.

Of course there has to be a balance and not letting kids get behind. Intense academic acceleration is not right for most kids in elementary. At the same time, all kids should be at least grade level and strive higher than that.

Uh, lots of kids are curious and love learning in all manner of different schools.

The tradeoff IMO is being so far behind in math that it's hard to catch up, so you're shut out of certain high school courses and opportunities, and don't have as good a transcript. K-8s may view this as not their problem, but it's still the kid's problem.

The tradeoff for younger kids is that while many of them catch up, others don't and any serious learning issue may go unnoticed because expectations are so low.

In general, low academic standards open the door to ineffective teaching being tolerated. A great teacher can make sure the kids learn a lot, but these approaches do allow for poor teaching to be acceptable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've seen these phrases or similar a handful of times on here - what does it mean? By what mechanism is this the case?

If the search function weren't so hopelessly broken I'd pull out some examples but alas

LOL no they are Kipling kids ignorant and lacking in math and science skills

At what cost? Does your second grader really need to be doing so many worksheets? What do you think actually matters in the long run?

I'd rather have a happy, well behaved kid who is physically active and can carry on a conversation and interact with adults and other kids like a normal person. It is pretty trivial to learn math and science in middle / high school. If you think your elementary school kid is academically advanced, you would be wrong 99% of the time.

Yeah, I already don't use geometry in my daily life but with all the AI advances it feels like letting kids love learning is the big win. Who knows what facts or processes, if any, will be useful to them in another 20 years.

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a misnomer, but gets to an important idea: in response to some (very real) concerns about literacy, we've been making school more academic and regimented earlier and earlier. Some of those high-performing EU countries don't have compulsory school until age 7 -- but here you can do full-time PK at age 3. When you put a 3-4 year old in an environment better suited to a 7-8 year old, they may learn to read younger, but they may also act out, not be able to regulate, or just decide that school sucks and is boring – and that last one is SUPER hard to undo. My kids learned to read and spell much earlier than I did in the '90s, and DCPS did a great job in that respect. But the oldest started to sour on school circa 3rd grade because, from what we could gather, the environment just wasn't that age appropriate by design. It's less about being a kid longer, than about keeping that curiosity going while their feelings about school take shape.

This is key. When kids are curious and want to learn, that carries forward in life. Once school sucks, that curiosity dies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've seen these phrases or similar a handful of times on here - what does it mean? By what mechanism is this the case?

If the search function weren't so hopelessly broken I'd pull out some examples but alas

LOL no they are Kipling kids ignorant and lacking in math and science skills

At what cost? Does your second grader really need to be doing so many worksheets? What do you think actually matters in the long run?

I'd rather have a happy, well behaved kid who is physically active and can carry on a conversation and interact with adults and other kids like a normal person. It is pretty trivial to learn math and science in middle / high school. If you think your elementary school kid is academically advanced, you would be wrong 99% of the time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've seen these phrases or similar a handful of times on here - what does it mean? By what mechanism is this the case?

If the search function weren't so hopelessly broken I'd pull out some examples but alas

LOL no they are Kipling kids ignorant and lacking in math and science skills

I mean, assuming that's the case I think I'd accept a happier, more engaged kid figuring out how to be a person in exchange for not starting algebra as early. Like if that's the tradeoff I'm OK with it.

I think it's a misnomer, but gets to an important idea: in response to some (very real) concerns about literacy, we've been making school more academic and regimented earlier and earlier. Some of those high-performing EU countries don't have compulsory school until age 7 -- but here you can do full-time PK at age 3. When you put a 3-4 year old in an environment better suited to a 7-8 year old, they may learn to read younger, but they may also act out, not be able to regulate, or just decide that school sucks and is boring – and that last one is SUPER hard to undo. My kids learned to read and spell much earlier than I did in the '90s, and DCPS did a great job in that respect. But the oldest started to sour on school circa 3rd grade because, from what we could gather, the environment just wasn't that age appropriate by design. It's less about being a kid longer, than about keeping that curiosity going while their feelings about school take shape.

Anonymous wrote:I've seen these phrases or similar a handful of times on here - what does it mean? By what mechanism is this the case?

If the search function weren't so hopelessly broken I'd pull out some examples but alas

LOL no they are Kipling kids ignorant and lacking in math and science skills

More recess

Not necessarily lower tech instructionally, but being stricter about devices brought from home

A willingness to enforce rules about speech and content and behavior that would not be legal in the public school system (for example, nobody is allowed to be gay at school because that ruins some imaginary purity of childhood, or kicking a girl out for being pregnant, or requiring a Statement of Faith for enrollment)

Sometimes it means less academic pressure when the kids are young

Sometimes this is something K-8s say as cope for the lack of a high school.

Anonymous wrote:Dont worry they speed right on up in 9th grade when the drugs/drinking start.

Boy, that was my experience as a kid. I went to a small Catholic school in Madison, WI (which is a bit different than the east coast, no uniforms, minimal religion that I can recall) and through 8th grade I don't think anyone in my class had kissed another kid, gotten drunk, or done drugs (except one kid who got hemp hard candies and said they were making him high - in hindsight I don't think they had THC).

Anyway, I moved away after 8th grade and went back to visit the next year and shadowed a friend at the high school (same school and campus, mind you) and was gobsmacked. It's like all those things hit hard all at once. Very jarring for me to see that change without the progression over 10 months.

Agree with above, it means less screen time and more play-based curriculum.

In lower school, not overwhelming kids with worksheets and sitting at a desk. Using a more age appropriate, play based curriculum. Making learning fun rather than sitting at a desk all day doing paperwork.

Dont worry they speed right on up in 9th grade when the drugs/drinking start.

I've seen these phrases or similar a handful of times on here - what does it mean? By what mechanism is this the case?

If the search function weren't so hopelessly broken I'd pull out some examples but alas