Early reading, in itself, is not predictive of future skills. Language acquisition is much more complex than that. What you call low rigor is likely an evidence-based best practice.

I agree. This post is baiting .

Anonymous wrote:I call troll. Unless you're a complete idiot OP, no one calls their kid buttercup and no one exults the public schools unless their kid is in one.

Sigh.

I call troll. Unless you're a complete idiot OP, no one calls their kid buttercup and no one exults the public schools unless their kid is in one.

Use these "laid-back" years to allow your child to read for pleasure, learn a musical instrument, pick up a sport, build things with their hands, create with their imagination, play with their friends, explore the outdoors, help in their community. In the end, they will pick up the math, science, history, writing, language, and other academic knowledge in due course. Their personal and independent growth in other areas is what may make the difference in their future.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi,
Our blessed buttercup will be starting at a highly selective private school this year. Many of our friends and colleagues have cautioned/warned/indicated that there is not much rigor in those early years: the pace at which math and reading are taught is slower than the high-quality public schools in Bethesda/VA, and also likely below the level at which many children are capable of (given they have supportive parents, perhaps often high test scores, etc.). We are told in 9th grade, when a bunch of top-performing kids from public schools join, the 'lifers' are perhaps even at a disadvantage.

1) LOL blessed buttercup.
2) I guess it depends on which school you're talking about, but this is certainly untrue about the more selective private schools.
3) The only grain of truth in your post is We are told in 9th grade, when a bunch of top-performing kids from public schools join, the 'lifers' are perhaps even at a disadvantage. But you're mixing up cause and effect. It is very difficult to tell which 4 year olds will be highly gifted, whereas by 9th grade it's obvious. So students who enter at 9th grade are usually a uniformly high-performing crowd, whereas the lifers contain at least some proportion who aren't quite as able but happened to do admissions testing during a time when they were having a cognitive growth spurt and were ahead of their peers. The lifers are no worse off than they would have been elsewhere -- in fact, there's some evidence that being surrounded by a high proportion of high-achieving kids boosts lower-achieving kids' performance.

I agree. Nice analysis/summary, PP.

PP here again - and I do agree that the lower achieving students are benefitting. Not as sure about the poorly behaved ones, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hi,
Our blessed buttercup will be starting at a highly selective private school this year. Many of our friends and colleagues have cautioned/warned/indicated that there is not much rigor in those early years: the pace at which math and reading are taught is slower than the high-quality public schools in Bethesda/VA, and also likely below the level at which many children are capable of (given they have supportive parents, perhaps often high test scores, etc.). We are told in 9th grade, when a bunch of top-performing kids from public schools join, the 'lifers' are perhaps even at a disadvantage.

1) LOL blessed buttercup.
2) I guess it depends on which school you're talking about, but this is certainly untrue about the more selective private schools.
3) The only grain of truth in your post is We are told in 9th grade, when a bunch of top-performing kids from public schools join, the 'lifers' are perhaps even at a disadvantage. But you're mixing up cause and effect. It is very difficult to tell which 4 year olds will be highly gifted, whereas by 9th grade it's obvious. So students who enter at 9th grade are usually a uniformly high-performing crowd, whereas the lifers contain at least some proportion who aren't quite as able but happened to do admissions testing during a time when they were having a cognitive growth spurt and were ahead of their peers. The lifers are no worse off than they would have been elsewhere -- in fact, there's some evidence that being surrounded by a high proportion of high-achieving kids boosts lower-achieving kids' performance.

NP here -

PP I agree with your post except that I'm not so sure I'd say that our child is surrounded by any more high achieving kids in private school Our local public has probably more high achievers in numbers - but the public doesn't necessarily meet the needs of those children as well. It is our experience that there are plenty of those "difficult to assess 4 yr olds" (as well as some siblings if you aren't at Sidwell) in the class to make a difference. So there are not "just high-achievers" in the classroom and the presence of distractors does make a difference - even in private schools. That said, having a smaller class (and overall student body) makes a huge difference in dealing with those sorts of issues and I am sure our private is much more responsive than the public would be. We also have the added benefit of being at a school where social behavior and community are important and the counselors and school do a lot of work to deal with bully-like issues and generally try to teach children to be kind to one another (a big plus).

Anonymous wrote:Hi,
Our blessed buttercup will be starting at a highly selective private school this year. Many of our friends and colleagues have cautioned/warned/indicated that there is not much rigor in those early years: the pace at which math and reading are taught is slower than the high-quality public schools in Bethesda/VA, and also likely below the level at which many children are capable of (given they have supportive parents, perhaps often high test scores, etc.). We are told in 9th grade, when a bunch of top-performing kids from public schools join, the 'lifers' are perhaps even at a disadvantage.

1) LOL blessed buttercup.
2) I guess it depends on which school you're talking about, but this is certainly untrue about the more selective private schools.
3) The only grain of truth in your post is We are told in 9th grade, when a bunch of top-performing kids from public schools join, the 'lifers' are perhaps even at a disadvantage. But you're mixing up cause and effect. It is very difficult to tell which 4 year olds will be highly gifted, whereas by 9th grade it's obvious. So students who enter at 9th grade are usually a uniformly high-performing crowd, whereas the lifers contain at least some proportion who aren't quite as able but happened to do admissions testing during a time when they were having a cognitive growth spurt and were ahead of their peers. The lifers are no worse off than they would have been elsewhere -- in fact, there's some evidence that being surrounded by a high proportion of high-achieving kids boosts lower-achieving kids' performance.

I disagree with your premise but you highlight a different mindset that might be at work.

Fundamentally, the reason we make the investment in a very expensive private school is that we believe in a more progressive approach to education. In the early years, the goal is to develop the child's social and emotional skills as much as the academics. We want our child to manage themselves emotionally, navigate all sorts of social situations, and develop influence and leadership skills. We don't just value art and drama for presentation skills, but to explore artistic sensibilities or interest and appreciation of the arts. We believe that joy in learning isn't internalized with carrots and stick or rote skill acquisition, but by actually making learning fun and appropriate for the child's actual intellectual development.

The "academic rigor" in elementary school used in the public G&T and AAP aren't very meaningful to us. We had every confidence that our child would be on the front of any achievement curve because she has every possible advantage in the world. So our focus was on meaning and concepts, not mechanics. My child was reading at 4, but is only just not learning how to read literature closely in middle school. She learned her multiplication tables "organically" with manipulatives and games in 2nd grade so she never thought of math as "boring." But it will be a few years before she gets to the post-calculus math that will determine how far she can go in the sciences. Our worry is that too much attention to hitting arbitrary milestones can be harmful for long-term success because it ignores figuring out when she would be most developmentally ready to go fast and when to go slow. Now that she's going to high school, I feel pretty confident that her academic skills are second to none but the oddball prodigy.

A more blunt way of saying it is that we want our child to be a "boss" not a "grind." We wanted a school to cultivate our child as someone who asks the questions that other need to answer and has the skills to get other people to see things differently. And it doesn't matter to us whether she chooses to be an artist or an entertainer rather than an academic or lawyer or doctor as long as she uses her talents at the highest level possible.

I think it's quite odd that you're asking this now, after you've applied and been accepted, as opposed to during admissions season.

That said, I don't buy into the theory that there are clear learning milestones that apply to all children. Kids ought to learn at their own pace, when they're ready, and most importantly, they should be engaged and enjoy the school experience. If you don't agree, I don't understand why you applied and accepted admission to a "low rigor" lower school for your child.

OP wrote: "We are told in 9th grade, when a bunch of top-performing kids from public schools join, the 'lifers' are perhaps even at a disadvantage."

First, the expanded class will include students from other privates, too.

This doesn't seem to pan out in the long run. Look at college acceptances. Lots of lifers get into top schools.

In some European countries, children do not learn to read until second grade. Slow and steady ...

We are in private school, and I think if the kids are pushed too hard at a young age, it can backfire. They can burnout, hate school, or simply break down. It depends on your child. It's a journey to 12th grade, and we have decided to pace ourselves. We also want our child to have some type of childhood and be able to pursue some things that are enjoyable (not just things that have to get done).

I've never heard that, and it hasn't been my experience. Sorry I can't contribute to the drama you are trying to stir up.

Hi,
Our blessed buttercup will be starting at a highly selective private school this year. Many of our friends and colleagues have cautioned/warned/indicated that there is not much rigor in those early years: the pace at which math and reading are taught is slower than the high-quality public schools in Bethesda/VA, and also likely below the level at which many children are capable of (given they have supportive parents, perhaps often high test scores, etc.). We are told in 9th grade, when a bunch of top-performing kids from public schools join, the 'lifers' are perhaps even at a disadvantage.

Certainly the highly selective private lower schools must be aware of the claim that they could be pushing the children more (and aware that many parents engage in supplementary math, etc.). But they seem to deliberately choose a more relaxed curriculum.

I'd love to get peoples views on whether they do they do so because:
a) they don't think there is much value to "pushing" learning in elementary school years, because kids will catch up anyway (e.g., the theory that you rarely meet a 9 year old who can't read, so why stress whether a child is reading at 3, 4, or 5)
b) they do more social/art/presentation type skill development, which the public schools neglect, and which has value later in life
c) elementary students at highly selective private schools are in fact less prepared to learn than in Bethesda public schools, so they are teaching to the level [in other towns, i've heard it said that the only kids who go to private school are the ones who can't hack it at the good public schools]
d) there is no such difference, and kids in private schools are learning as much or more than top public schools
e) Something else we're missing?

We're committed to the private school because of location considerations, but are a bit curious, as we have heard this claim a few times.