Sounds like he's a self-starter and loves learning so I'd be less worried about finding someplace that will challenge him than finding someplace that will not get in his way. I had a series of public schools that didn't get in my way and what I got out of it was self-reliance and intrinsic motivation. Basically, I'm never bored and I'm always learning -- still!

Our local public *did* look like it would get in the way (no sit in the corner and read option), so we sent our kid to GDS. DC is in middle school at this point and has had a really great education -- in part because of the kind of student she is. I think GDS is an excellent place for kids who are intellectually playful and who like hard fun. Maybe not so great for kids who are smart but just tend to do the needful. Or who are motivated more by competition or recognition rather than the desire to learn or figure things out.

Anonymous wrote:New poster. I am fascinated by this thread .... We're looking at privates for a number of reasons and I don't want to be the parent (see the pet peeve thread) who asks all the wrong questions about what are you going to do for MY kid (special snowflake that he is), but that's what I want to know.

Any suggestion? Please please pretty please? Thanks.

It sounds to me like you have a smart kid and are doing the right thing by looking for an environment that will involve/engage him next year in PK, and also for several years to come. I agree you want to find a program where the teachers will have the time/inclination to engage your child. From my investigation, you're correct that private schools are better designed to provide that individual engagement at this age. I'm sure there are some public school teachers who do the same thing, but it seems harder to find them and requires a fair amount of luck to get assigned to their classrooms.

As for seeking this info without being perceived as that special-snowflake parent, I think the best thing you can do is listen closely, research each school carefully to see what sort of activities it offers, and try to get an understanding of what your child's classroom will be doing each day. With that info, you can try to figure out whether your child will be interested. Don't be afraid to ask questions about what happens in the classroom, but be aware that if there is an undercurrent of suggestion that you're asking because you want to make sure your special snowflake will be receiving all the advanced treatment he deserves, then you will be perceived as annoying. That's not fair or right, but it's also not going to change, so you need to deal with it.

Recognize that while your own child's characteristics (very high test scores, self-reliance, adept at puzzles, early reading of easy chapter books, etc) are very positive and impressive, there certainly are many other children in the applicant pool (and probably on even in your small tour group!) who exhibit all the same criteria. I can think of at least half a dozen children that went through PK with my DC who exhibited all the same characteristics, and I'm sure there were others who also have the same abilities, but I just don't know them well enough to know about it. There are several very competitive PK programs in the area, and I'd assume that they all have similar numbers of smart kids in their classrooms.

Also, you should recognize that many (most?) schools view PK and K as a time when children should be focused on learning how to be productive members of a school community (standing in line, sharing toys, waiting your turn, managing impulses, listening and following directions, figuring out how to navigate an unfamiliar environment, balancing independence with responsibility, etc). While these PK and K classrooms will have some academic lessons, their primary goal is often not to force-feed academics. If your child is sitting in the corner reading 3rd grade books (or even learning to read 6th grade books) rather than playing duck-duck-goose with the rest of the class, then he's not participating positively and is not really learning to function.

Those are my views at least. Take them or leave them as you see fit.

Anonymous wrote:New poster. I am fascinated by this thread because I'm struggling with what to do with our child: nearly 5, has been in FT daycare since 3 months (large center), reading for at least six months (independently reading Magic Treehouse, etc) and loves it, tested at 99.9%/145, just a very quick kid. He's also pretty good about doing things on his own (going off in a corner and reading or doing puzzles or just generally entertaining himself). Local N Arlington school is very good. But I want him to be challenged and I want him to have to work hard. The point that several posters made about fear of failure rings true for me -- I want him to struggle and "not succeed" sometimes so that he's not afraid of it (like I was). I want him to want to learn (he does now) and I'm scared that if we made the wrong first choice (for example, we send him to public K and he winds up sitting in the corner by himself most of the year reading third grade books because he's ok with it and the teacher needs to focus -- rightfully -- on the 24 or so other kids who need help reading) he will be bored and not develop a love of school and learning. We're looking at privates for a number of reasons and I don't want to be the parent (see the pet peeve thread) who asks all the wrong questions about what are you going to do for MY kid (special snowflake that he is), but that's what I want to know.

Any suggestion? Please please pretty please? Thanks.

If you're in Arlington, why isn't Potomac an easy/obvious suggestion? If it's the $30,000, then I'd look for a great Montessori school in Arlington, enroll him as soon as you can and stay as long as you can.

Anonymous wrote:New poster. I am fascinated by this thread because I'm struggling with what to do with our child: nearly 5, has been in FT daycare since 3 months (large center), reading for at least six months (independently reading Magic Treehouse, etc) and loves it, tested at 99.9%/145, just a very quick kid. He's also pretty good about doing things on his own (going off in a corner and reading or doing puzzles or just generally entertaining himself). Local N Arlington school is very good. But I want him to be challenged and I want him to have to work hard. The point that several posters made about fear of failure rings true for me -- I want him to struggle and "not succeed" sometimes so that he's not afraid of it (like I was). I want him to want to learn (he does now) and I'm scared that if we made the wrong first choice (for example, we send him to public K and he winds up sitting in the corner by himself most of the year reading third grade books because he's ok with it and the teacher needs to focus -- rightfully -- on the 24 or so other kids who need help reading) he will be bored and not develop a love of school and learning. We're looking at privates for a number of reasons and I don't want to be the parent (see the pet peeve thread) who asks all the wrong questions about what are you going to do for MY kid (special snowflake that he is), but that's what I want to know.

Any suggestion? Please please pretty please? Thanks.

Look into Feynman School. They are relocating to Bethesda at the end of the month and are doing open houses now. It is about 5 minutes from the 495 exit on Democracy Blvd. My child loves it there. It is such a fun and joyful environment. He's in PreK now. They just finished a unit on architecture that was wonderful. They not only learned about designing and building structures but also the economics involved. They took at field trip to an architecture firm this week and my little guy is still talking about it. They are going to the National Building Museum next week. They are doing writing workshops and author studies. The curriculum has a science focus and is partial Spanish immersion. They have weekly dance and music lessons. The children in aftercare are learning chess and piano.

New poster. I am fascinated by this thread because I'm struggling with what to do with our child: nearly 5, has been in FT daycare since 3 months (large center), reading for at least six months (independently reading Magic Treehouse, etc) and loves it, tested at 99.9%/145, just a very quick kid. He's also pretty good about doing things on his own (going off in a corner and reading or doing puzzles or just generally entertaining himself). Local N Arlington school is very good. But I want him to be challenged and I want him to have to work hard. The point that several posters made about fear of failure rings true for me -- I want him to struggle and "not succeed" sometimes so that he's not afraid of it (like I was). I want him to want to learn (he does now) and I'm scared that if we made the wrong first choice (for example, we send him to public K and he winds up sitting in the corner by himself most of the year reading third grade books because he's ok with it and the teacher needs to focus -- rightfully -- on the 24 or so other kids who need help reading) he will be bored and not develop a love of school and learning. We're looking at privates for a number of reasons and I don't want to be the parent (see the pet peeve thread) who asks all the wrong questions about what are you going to do for MY kid (special snowflake that he is), but that's what I want to know.

Any suggestion? Please please pretty please? Thanks.

Anonymous wrote:I hope your private is not Landon.

No, DD attends a "Big 3".

I hope your private is not Landon.

But we are not a high SES family. HHI is 70k/DD's IQ is 145. I can't afford enrichment, private lessons, etc... DD got into a great private, but would be nice if they differentiated a little. DD has pretty much been a helper for the other kids since pre-K with no differentiation for her. Better than her local public here she could get stabbed though, I guess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting quote -- thanks for posting it! (Although, in case you don't know, lots of people think Murray's work on IQ is really racist.)

But I think he sells all kids (and/or good teachers) short in the sense that well-constructed assignments can be challenging but not overwhelming for kids at a variety of different levels.

While ITA that intellectual humility (or maybe what I'd call a form of intellectual honesty -- being very aware of what you don't know) is crucial to the development of wisdom, I don't think that such humility comes from teachers being dissatisfied with a student's best work or from a demanding curriculum or from the experience of feeling incompetent. I think it comes from grappling with difficult issues and from treating your first "best take" as a launching pad for your next "best take." Basically, it involves an emphasis on learning and understanding as a continual process rather than as a finished product that meets or doesn't meet some official standard. And it requires people to be self-critical. So the attitude isn't "I can't do this" but "I worked hard to get here, but, having gotten here, I now see how I could do so much more/better."

If you don't learn to love the process and only seek the extrinsic reward, you're unlikely to make the most of what your intellect has to offer. And, to circle back to my first point, lots of kids (regardless of their IQs) could (and should) be taught in ways that encourage them to love the process of learning. That's not a form of pedagogy that should be reserved for gifted kids.

Murray would call this educational romanticism and maybe if we were at a point where most people were firing on all cylinders, intellectually speaking, he'd be right. But if we really are using only about 10% of our brainpower it seems like even "average" kids could do what "gifted" kids can do if we taught them in ways that sparked them to use more of the mental capacity available to them.

But we aren't talking about how to spark average kids potential. It's a noble and important task but doesn't do anything to meet the needs of the gifted today.

The above post is probably the most interesting few paragraphs that I've ever read on DCUM. Who are you ? Are you an educator? I hope so. If so, where do you teach ?

Except it isn't true. We don't use only 10% of our brains. That's a pop culture myth.

Providing additional enrichment for kids in high socioeconomic groups doesn't improve out comes. Rich kids' performance is almost entirely tied to inherited IQ. Their environment is so enriched that their parents have already optimized the outcome for their kids' natural talents. You don't get more out of high SES kids by adding more.

This article does a good enough job explaining the research:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703954004576090020541379588.html

More here:http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/06/15/how-much-do-parents-really-matter/

I'm the person who recommended Ritchhart's book on intellectual character -- that's a good place to start. Lucy Calkins's work is also useful (Raising Lifelong Learners is the one directed toward parents).

And maybe the best example I know of what it looks like to educate all kids like gifted kids is Little Kids, Powerful Problem-Solvers: Math Stories from a Kindergarten Classroom. You can read a free sample chapter here: http://www.heinemann.com/shared/onlineresources/E00431/chapter9.pdf -- although my favorite is "October," the one about sharing cookies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting quote -- thanks for posting it! (Although, in case you don't know, lots of people think Murray's work on IQ is really racist.)

But I think he sells all kids (and/or good teachers) short in the sense that well-constructed assignments can be challenging but not overwhelming for kids at a variety of different levels.

While ITA that intellectual humility (or maybe what I'd call a form of intellectual honesty -- being very aware of what you don't know) is crucial to the development of wisdom, I don't think that such humility comes from teachers being dissatisfied with a student's best work or from a demanding curriculum or from the experience of feeling incompetent. I think it comes from grappling with difficult issues and from treating your first "best take" as a launching pad for your next "best take." Basically, it involves an emphasis on learning and understanding as a continual process rather than as a finished product that meets or doesn't meet some official standard. And it requires people to be self-critical. So the attitude isn't "I can't do this" but "I worked hard to get here, but, having gotten here, I now see how I could do so much more/better."

If you don't learn to love the process and only seek the extrinsic reward, you're unlikely to make the most of what your intellect has to offer. And, to circle back to my first point, lots of kids (regardless of their IQs) could (and should) be taught in ways that encourage them to love the process of learning. That's not a form of pedagogy that should be reserved for gifted kids.

Murray would call this educational romanticism and maybe if we were at a point where most people were firing on all cylinders, intellectually speaking, he'd be right. But if we really are using only about 10% of our brainpower it seems like even "average" kids could do what "gifted" kids can do if we taught them in ways that sparked them to use more of the mental capacity available to them.

But we aren't talking about how to spark average kids potential. It's a noble and important task but doesn't do anything to meet the needs of the gifted today.

The above post is probably the most interesting few paragraphs that I've ever read on DCUM. Who are you ? Are you an educator? I hope so. If so, where do you teach ?

An independent scholar. Sometimes I come out of my lair to volunteer in the classroom and/or to teach teachers. I'm also a private school parent, which is why I sometimes read this board.

Have you authored any books the titles of which you would be willing to hare. Or do you draw your ideas from any books that you might name in this forum. Thanks

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting quote -- thanks for posting it! (Although, in case you don't know, lots of people think Murray's work on IQ is really racist.)

But I think he sells all kids (and/or good teachers) short in the sense that well-constructed assignments can be challenging but not overwhelming for kids at a variety of different levels.

While ITA that intellectual humility (or maybe what I'd call a form of intellectual honesty -- being very aware of what you don't know) is crucial to the development of wisdom, I don't think that such humility comes from teachers being dissatisfied with a student's best work or from a demanding curriculum or from the experience of feeling incompetent. I think it comes from grappling with difficult issues and from treating your first "best take" as a launching pad for your next "best take." Basically, it involves an emphasis on learning and understanding as a continual process rather than as a finished product that meets or doesn't meet some official standard. And it requires people to be self-critical. So the attitude isn't "I can't do this" but "I worked hard to get here, but, having gotten here, I now see how I could do so much more/better."

If you don't learn to love the process and only seek the extrinsic reward, you're unlikely to make the most of what your intellect has to offer. And, to circle back to my first point, lots of kids (regardless of their IQs) could (and should) be taught in ways that encourage them to love the process of learning. That's not a form of pedagogy that should be reserved for gifted kids.

Murray would call this educational romanticism and maybe if we were at a point where most people were firing on all cylinders, intellectually speaking, he'd be right. But if we really are using only about 10% of our brainpower it seems like even "average" kids could do what "gifted" kids can do if we taught them in ways that sparked them to use more of the mental capacity available to them.

But we aren't talking about how to spark average kids potential. It's a noble and important task but doesn't do anything to meet the needs of the gifted today.

The above post is probably the most interesting few paragraphs that I've ever read on DCUM. Who are you ? Are you an educator? I hope so. If so, where do you teach ?

An independent scholar. Sometimes I come out of my lair to volunteer in the classroom and/or to teach teachers. I'm also a private school parent, which is why I sometimes read this board.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm the OP of this thread and my opinion is that private schools don't have to serve anyone they don't want to. They aren't required to in any way and we shouldn't hold it against them for not doing so. They should be up front about this when parents inquire and they might well be in most cases.

I do think that sometimes it would be relatively inexpensive to allow some of their students to progress to higher grade courses should it be appropriate or do more ability grouping to allow for deeper and broader instruction. I wish they would be more open to that and maybe some are.

My main point is that if you have a child like this you should not assume that these schools are set up to accomodate such a child. I think these boards give the impression that might be so but it's not.

I agree it would be relatively inexpensive to hire a resource teacher for 95th-99th percentile kids. Once the school has paid for the new teacher's healthcare and pension and books and materials, what would this cost, about $100K or $120K? Not peanuts, but probably doable.

I think this would be a great thing for these 95th-99th percentile kids. And it might be a plus for the school too, because the school could make this part of its mission, and use it as a bragging point with prospective parents.

But I can totally see the downside for the school in doing this. First, imagine the fierce lobbying from every single family to get their kids into the "elite" group, because of some assumption that the Ivies will pluck these kids first - I've seen this lobbying first hand, and it already happens with the existing, more limited ability groupings (leading to "teacher peeve" threads, but I digress). Second, imagine the parents who want their fair share - "those kids got a resource teacher, so I want a resource teacher for my kid who struggles with ADD or executive function," which is a valid request, and how does the school respond given that money isn't unlimited. Third, what about the kids who aren't put in the new, super-high ability group - do they think they aren't as talented, and will their parents complain?


So yeah, I agree with you that most privates haven't made this their mission, and I can understand why they leave this mission to the magnets.

I don't think it is an equal anaology to say , well, if you provide a resource teacher for gifted kids, you should also provide it for LD kids ( though often those groups coincide)
Here's why I disagree: We are at a juncture in our history where we can /must move forward with technology, green energy, conservation etc.. and we also struggle with ethics. How wasteful is it to warehouse brilliant little minds in a mainstream class where for years ( until differentiation is HS, say) they will be bored out of their skulls, getting the idea that school is boring, offers nothing of intertest, when in 20 years we are going to desperately need them to be the next Steve Jobs or Bill Gates. For the resource you put into a gifted child you get far more back for all of us.

I'm stunned by your sense of entitlement. FWIW, you're responding to my post, and also, my kids are in MoCo magnets after being bored in an area private school.

You also seem to be conflating two different issues:
1. You seem to be arguing that the marginal return to an extra dollar spent on gifted education is greater than the marginal return to an extra dollar spent on LD education. Do you have any research to back this up? I'm not aware of any research. On the contrary, I could paint a picture similar to yours but for LD kids: educating today's LD kids will ensure that we have the workforce we need for tomorrow and save state and federal money otherwise needed to support them for life on TANF and SSDI and Medicaid. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for raising my own taxes to pay TANF and Medicaid, which are great programs - but why not create productive individuals instead? Or, what's the marginal return to helping a kid with ADHD and executive functions issues instead of allowing her to get counseled out of private school? Meanwhile, Steve Jobs didn't get special help at a school like anything like the elite DC privates.
2. Why is it the mission of a private school to spend extra dollars (assuming some study shows it's worth it) to educate EITHER gifted or LD kids? As a PP said, private schools can educate whoever they want. It's only in places like MoCo where there's a statute that says that the county has to offer each kid an appropriate education (I'm sure I got the language wrong, but it's something like that). And as I pointed out in my post, there are some downsides to educating the most gifted kids in private schools, like the super-competitive parents who all want their kids in the gifted group and are PO'd at the school if Johnny doesn't get in.