Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:My daughter recently asked if we could look in to St. Andrew's for high school. We know a few families whose children are there now and a few that have graduated. Most of them loved it, commenting that it is a warm community and the teachers are wonderful. Multiple of them also commented that it was a pretty small school that did feel limited socially. They seem to have pretty good college placements, so there is that, but there also seem to be a large number of students that are seen as awkward and viewed as non-traditional learners. While I do love that there isn't a homogeneous crowd, I'm concerned that the relatively small size of the school mixed with the greater number of awkward kids might make it feel as if it is a special needs school and that my more traditional kid will be frustrated in that situation. I will say that when I mention she may apply there, about half of the people I tell are surprised because she is incredibly bright and they believe it to be for children with learning issues, similar to Burke or Field. Is this all completely off base?
There is so much wrong with this post.
It's one of the most offensive posts I've read on this forum, and that's saying a lot.
+100.
I am a parent of two recent SAES graduates. I don't find the post above offensive, but it is completely wrong and the author is ignorant of many facts. In fairness, he/she concluded by asking "Is this all completely off base?" And the answer to that question is yes -- it is all completely off base. I endorse what has been said positive about the school above in this thread. Beyond that, I will only comment on corrections/ additions. as follows:
1. It is a smaller school than GDS or Sidwell, but the gap is not what it used to be. Four years ago, there were only about 60-65 graduates. I understand the current 9th grade class is up to about 95 students. It has grown dramatically in recent years as a result of the improved economy and probably the improved physical facilities and a little marketing.
2. Even when it was smaller, it was not socially limiting unless a child was shy and stuck to only his class. Most kids have friends a grade above or below them as well because they are on sports teams, in the band, in school plays/musicals, in clubs, on trips to South Africa or Haiti or other places over spring break, at conferences with students from other private schools etc. St Andrews works best for kids who get involved in the school in one or more aspects outside of the classroom.
3. There are no more awkward kids in high school at St. Andrews than at most other privates, including schools like GDS and Maret. The vast majority of the kids with whom my children attended were overwhelmingly polite, caring kids with good social skills in the high school. And it is not dumb luck. The school fosters this in many ways -- some subtle, some not so subtle.
4. Most kids did not have diagnosed learning disabilities - by a wide margin -- but there are likely more such kids there than at a place like Sidwell. That's a good thing for several reasons. First, there are enough such kids that if your child does need extended time for exams at some point, he/she will usually have several classmates with him/her when taking an exam. Actually, let me correct that. That's true for certain standardized tests and maybe some finals, but the teachers usually try to make the exams such that they can be completed before the end of a class period by most students so that kids who need a little extra time do not need to be singled out in a different room. Some teachers also work with some kids in those situations to come after school and finish an exam if necessary. It's very individual and situation specific. Importantly, none of this in any way detracts from the educational experience of the other kids - it just doesn't.. See comment 5c below.
5. Now -- a few big things wrong with the post above:
a) the post implies that social awkwardness goes hand in hand with being a nontraditional learner. Maybe in some cases, but I have known many kids with great social skills who had mild learning disabilities. In fact, the latter may actually help give rise to the former. I have also know some brilliant kids -- and they are at all the privates and publics - who have awful social skills. The great trial lawyer David Boise is dyslexic -- he had to have other students read his books to him or record assignments on a tape recorder. I have seen him interviewed -- his social skills seem just find to go along with his brilliant mind.
b) having a learning disability does not necessarily mean you have a different learning style. Some learning disabilities are not that at all -- they are limitations in expressive language / expressive processing -- i.e., they are testing disabilities. A kid may be learning amazingly but just have trouble showing it by writing an essay in a limited time. Or.
c) finally, the above post implies that a child with some learning disability or different learning style - receptive or expressive -- contributes to the class in terms of diversity, but not as much academically. Unfortunately, that is the most erroneous and misleading implication of the quoted post above. When my kids were at St. Andrew's, I knew several parents well and my kids knew their classmates, so I knew some of the kids who got extra time or went to see a tutor, etc. And I am sure there were others I didn't know -- it was not a class distinction anyone cared about or talked about. But I know that in each of the years that my own kids graduated, one or more of the top academic students in the class had some sort of learning disability. One of those graduates is attending an ivy league college now and thriving. Another is already in a top 10 PhD STEM program. These kids made many contributions in high school -- to the quality of class discussions, sports teams, clubs, social life, etc. They were well liked by their classmates and teachers. No one should assume that their child will in any way be held back by another child just because he/she has a learning disability.
.
3.