Holy redeemer in College Park is very structured and a loving, warm environment. preK-8. But if you live in DC that might be too far so I'd say any small parochial school is probably going to have the structure you're looking for. I know that for one of my kids, we thought a public montessori would be a good fit because they'd have more 'freedom of choice'. Well turns out it was a disaster. Our kid wasn't as self motivated as we expected, especially in a chaotic classroom where everyone did different things, and we felt that instead of real exploration, common core worksheets were the norm and yes, they could do this at their own pace, but it was horrendously boring and uninteresting. They remembered far more (and still do ) from their time in a regular classroom, with instruction from a teacher and interesting topics being covered. And the best thing is that they felt they were learning something. I don't doubt that when done properly montessori is great, and I certainly really like the materials, but if the classroom isn't well managed it can be a disaster, and it certainly isn't for every child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What type of gaps are you talking about?

Classes at the progressive schools are sometimes (or mostly) child-led. While children can get deep into topics they are interested about, this method can leave gaps in the curriculum where some areas are untouched. Time and coverage of each topic is not as structured as in traditional schools, where the teacher leads the class and time-spent / depth of learning is determined by the curriculum/teacher.

Serious question; I'm not being snarky.

Why would anyone choose this for a child? I cannot imagine anyone thinking this is a good idea, for any type of learner.

Please enlighten me.

It develops a love of learning and allows for independent thinking

That can be done even when you also learn math facts.

It seems you need(ed) a progressive education and/or therapy.

OP, I am actually here in hopes someone gives you some actual advice on schools. Alas…minus 2-3 of the PP, it appears no.

Honestly, Montgomery County Public Schools. We pulled our DC out of Lowell for the reasons outlined by OP, got a math tutor and an Audible subscription, and good to go after that. MoCo schools are solid with good teaching generally, enlightened curriculum and good energy. YMMV obvs, but our experience has been great.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What type of gaps are you talking about?

Classes at the progressive schools are sometimes (or mostly) child-led. While children can get deep into topics they are interested about, this method can leave gaps in the curriculum where some areas are untouched. Time and coverage of each topic is not as structured as in traditional schools, where the teacher leads the class and time-spent / depth of learning is determined by the curriculum/teacher.

Serious question; I'm not being snarky.

Why would anyone choose this for a child? I cannot imagine anyone thinking this is a good idea, for any type of learner.

Please enlighten me.

It develops a love of learning and allows for independent thinking

That can be done even when you also learn math facts.

It seems you need(ed) a progressive education and/or therapy.

OP, I am actually here in hopes someone gives you some actual advice on schools. Alas…minus 2-3 of the PP, it appears no.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What type of gaps are you talking about?

Classes at the progressive schools are sometimes (or mostly) child-led. While children can get deep into topics they are interested about, this method can leave gaps in the curriculum where some areas are untouched. Time and coverage of each topic is not as structured as in traditional schools, where the teacher leads the class and time-spent / depth of learning is determined by the curriculum/teacher.

Serious question; I'm not being snarky.

Why would anyone choose this for a child? I cannot imagine anyone thinking this is a good idea, for any type of learner.

Please enlighten me.

It develops a love of learning and allows for independent thinking

That can be done even when you also learn math facts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a child at one. He is flourishing, but is young - I don’t know if it is a good fit post say 2nd or so. I find engagement in life is so much better because they can “deep dive” into anything at school. And, honestly, it’s better to see math applies to counting things in a microscope or bees versus…worksheets. Again, oversimplification and not sure we will continue, but for young young kids it really has its value.

Right. Get back to us when he’s in 8th grade and can’t keep up with algebra because he never was “forced” to learn math facts.

I would take worksheets any day over this.

Wow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What type of gaps are you talking about?

Classes at the progressive schools are sometimes (or mostly) child-led. While children can get deep into topics they are interested about, this method can leave gaps in the curriculum where some areas are untouched. Time and coverage of each topic is not as structured as in traditional schools, where the teacher leads the class and time-spent / depth of learning is determined by the curriculum/teacher.

Serious question; I'm not being snarky.

Why would anyone choose this for a child? I cannot imagine anyone thinking this is a good idea, for any type of learner.

Please enlighten me.

It develops a love of learning and allows for independent thinking

At that age, you don’t want to be too far away from home. Nothing worse than a 30 minute commute with an elementary schooler. You also want playdates to be close and feasible. I would look at WES and St. Patrick’s. Catholic schools would work, too, if you’re up for that.

I suspect you want to avoid Lowell (or that’s where you are?) Sheridan, GDS, Sidwell, and Maret. NCA at STA would be okay, but not Beauvoir because of both the progressive style and second grade being a not-great transition year there.

It sounds like you are talking about schools that follow a Sudbury model.

I’m not aware of any local progressives that do that.

Kids are learning math facts. Kids are learning the scientific method. They learn how to read and write and analyze. They go onto to thrive at competitive high schools and colleges.

If your child is in 2nd grade and you feel they aren’t learning how to learn, I’d ask if you’ve done any testing for learning disabilities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a child at one. He is flourishing, but is young - I don’t know if it is a good fit post say 2nd or so. I find engagement in life is so much better because they can “deep dive” into anything at school. And, honestly, it’s better to see math applies to counting things in a microscope or bees versus…worksheets. Again, oversimplification and not sure we will continue, but for young young kids it really has its value.

Right. Get back to us when he’s in 8th grade and can’t keep up with algebra because he never was “forced” to learn math facts.

I would take worksheets any day over this.

Boy, you people are in boxes within boxes within boxes.

Anonymous wrote:I have a child at one. He is flourishing, but is young - I don’t know if it is a good fit post say 2nd or so. I find engagement in life is so much better because they can “deep dive” into anything at school. And, honestly, it’s better to see math applies to counting things in a microscope or bees versus…worksheets. Again, oversimplification and not sure we will continue, but for young young kids it really has its value.

Right. Get back to us when he’s in 8th grade and can’t keep up with algebra because he never was “forced” to learn math facts.

I would take worksheets any day over this.

I have a child at one. He is flourishing, but is young - I don’t know if it is a good fit post say 2nd or so. I find engagement in life is so much better because they can “deep dive” into anything at school. And, honestly, it’s better to see math applies to counting things in a microscope or bees versus…worksheets. Again, oversimplification and not sure we will continue, but for young young kids it really has its value.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What type of gaps are you talking about?

Classes at the progressive schools are sometimes (or mostly) child-led. While children can get deep into topics they are interested about, this method can leave gaps in the curriculum where some areas are untouched. Time and coverage of each topic is not as structured as in traditional schools, where the teacher leads the class and time-spent / depth of learning is determined by the curriculum/teacher.

Serious question; I'm not being snarky.

Why would anyone choose this for a child? I cannot imagine anyone thinking this is a good idea, for any type of learner.

Please enlighten me.

Not OP, nor someone who chose this route but I think I've seen it explained. It's partly about getting the child interested and invested in school and learning. The kid who wants to learn about dinosaurs at that age might be given opportunities to practice reading using dinosaur-based books, learn science or history or art with dinosaurs in the focus. I'm sure math would fit in there somewhere as well.

The problem IMO is that you need a teacher to provide the structure for that child-led interest. Sooner or later the child needs to learn to read so what's the plan if they don't want to read or write stories. I think it could work for certain kinds of kids with trained educators but it sounds like OP's child isn't getting that.

OP, K-8 Catholics might give you what you're looking for but it's a Catholic school so you have to decide if that works for your family. Structure is definitely a strength.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What type of gaps are you talking about?

Classes at the progressive schools are sometimes (or mostly) child-led. While children can get deep into topics they are interested about, this method can leave gaps in the curriculum where some areas are untouched. Time and coverage of each topic is not as structured as in traditional schools, where the teacher leads the class and time-spent / depth of learning is determined by the curriculum/teacher.

Serious question; I'm not being snarky.

Why would anyone choose this for a child? I cannot imagine anyone thinking this is a good idea, for any type of learner.

Please enlighten me.

There’s a lot to it but at base, student-centered and directed learning allows children to become active, engaged participants as they produce knowledge in their communities, rather than passive “consumers” of knowledge others consider important. It is a philosophy of empowerment that works best when schools embrace it wholeheartedly in full cross-disciplinary and project-based environments. The problem is that most schools feel too much pressure to employ such methods while adhering to outdated capitalist-consumerist frameworks that value quantification and cubicalization of so-called knowledge. So the result tries to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What type of gaps are you talking about?

Classes at the progressive schools are sometimes (or mostly) child-led. While children can get deep into topics they are interested about, this method can leave gaps in the curriculum where some areas are untouched. Time and coverage of each topic is not as structured as in traditional schools, where the teacher leads the class and time-spent / depth of learning is determined by the curriculum/teacher.

Serious question; I'm not being snarky.

Why would anyone choose this for a child? I cannot imagine anyone thinking this is a good idea, for any type of learner.

Please enlighten me.

A coworker's husband went to a school like this and my boss's children as well. It seems to work well for very intelligent kids who come from affluent families and will never need certain skills. One kid spent the entire year drawing detailed maps of the world. One kid composed her own songs. And so on. But the adult graduate said he still doesn't really know any mental math. He is a hugely successful lawyer so it was a wash i guess.
My own child, left to his own devices, would probably draw comic strips and design Mario levels. And we are NOT rich so he really needs skills to make him employable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What type of gaps are you talking about?

Classes at the progressive schools are sometimes (or mostly) child-led. While children can get deep into topics they are interested about, this method can leave gaps in the curriculum where some areas are untouched. Time and coverage of each topic is not as structured as in traditional schools, where the teacher leads the class and time-spent / depth of learning is determined by the curriculum/teacher.

Serious question; I'm not being snarky.

Why would anyone choose this for a child? I cannot imagine anyone thinking this is a good idea, for any type of learner.

Please enlighten me.