Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I felt our K-8 was great through 5th - fell off seriously in middle school and was not worth the tuition - seemed to me that a number of the middle school teachers took advantage of the flexibility to fail to really live up to the promise and just mailed it in and then complained about the kids. I think with middle schoolers it is much harder to motivate the kids to buy in to the approach. There were a few great teachers where the kid driven approach and curriculum were great but in most classes it was very frustrating. Don't know if that was a school specific issue or not

I think that some parents like the progressive vibe in early childhood and elementary, but then want more traditional academics for middle school or get cold feet, or their child is below grade level and they're sick of being told to wait and believe. So some of the more academically-focused families leave. People stay if they're happy with it, but also if they can't see their kid doing well elsewhere or if their kid doesn't get in elsewhere. And the kids who come in to replace the kids who leave tend to be a higher proportion ND or have other needs that make a traditional school a good fit. So the middle school population can be quite different from the elementary population in their abilities and classroom behaviors. And this is a self-reinforcing thing that grows more entrenched each year.

I posted above that progressive school was terrible for my kid with learning disabilities (we pulled her and sent her to a school with more explicit instruction) but great for my gifted kid. He's in high school now, but continued to have high performing peers through middle school. I would expect class composition to shift over the years, but based on our experience, not in the direction you suggest.

Agree with this. Our K-8 progressive is highly selective on who they admit in middle and overall strengthens the cohort I would say

Agree with the PPs who said that based your question, no, you should not go to a progressive school. We tried, and prior to having kids in school, I really believed in the “have faith it all comes together, we are building good humans, let them explore” thing. Then I had one kid who desperately needed more structure, who was falling behind in reading and writing and math, and the only reason I knew was because she kept begging me for help. The school was very cagey, as another pp said, saying she was doing fine and to have patience blah blah. We pulled her out and she’s thriving in a more structured and traditional school.

I think those schools work great for a narrow portion of kids - no learning differences, reading came easy, don’t need structure - but they are not it for the rest. Unfortunately bc they need your money, they are also terrible at telling you to go elsewhere absent major behavioral issues, so you might not know until it’s too late. We have a few friends whose kids are now in major reading intervention in 3rd grade bc the school kept saying wait and see…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those that say you need faith it will all come together or that have otherwise had good experience, what did the experience look like to you?

At our school, I know a lot of families are being told their kids are a little behind on things like reading, and the school can be a bit cagey about providing a lot of information to parents. I have found this all a bit disturbing.

I can offer DCs' school's writing curriculum as an example. Getting children comfortable with and confident about the process (and the wonderful rewards) of putting one's thoughts to paper was the focus during the earlier years, and things like spelling, adherence to grammar and punctuation rules, and proper paragraph structure were not emphasized over content. The kids wrote often and about everything, but their writing when compared to a child in the same grade at a more traditional school would likely have raised some people's eyebrows. The formalities of writing and correct spelling came a little later, at a time when teaching them was less likely to inhibit reluctant writers.

So they spent like 3-4 years teaching them to do it wrong then tried to fix it? Stupid

If you are OP and either (1) don't understand how this might work for some children; or (2) think it won't work for your child, then don't send your child to a progressive school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I felt our K-8 was great through 5th - fell off seriously in middle school and was not worth the tuition - seemed to me that a number of the middle school teachers took advantage of the flexibility to fail to really live up to the promise and just mailed it in and then complained about the kids. I think with middle schoolers it is much harder to motivate the kids to buy in to the approach. There were a few great teachers where the kid driven approach and curriculum were great but in most classes it was very frustrating. Don't know if that was a school specific issue or not

I think that some parents like the progressive vibe in early childhood and elementary, but then want more traditional academics for middle school or get cold feet, or their child is below grade level and they're sick of being told to wait and believe. So some of the more academically-focused families leave. People stay if they're happy with it, but also if they can't see their kid doing well elsewhere or if their kid doesn't get in elsewhere. And the kids who come in to replace the kids who leave tend to be a higher proportion ND or have other needs that make a traditional school a good fit. So the middle school population can be quite different from the elementary population in their abilities and classroom behaviors. And this is a self-reinforcing thing that grows more entrenched each year.

I posted above that progressive school was terrible for my kid with learning disabilities (we pulled her and sent her to a school with more explicit instruction) but great for my gifted kid. He's in high school now, but continued to have high performing peers through middle school. I would expect class composition to shift over the years, but based on our experience, not in the direction you suggest.

I think for any one kid, this kind of idea can cut in either direction. But I still think the net effect is towards lower academic performance, especially at K-8s where people worry about high school preparedness and admissions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those that say you need faith it will all come together or that have otherwise had good experience, what did the experience look like to you?

At our school, I know a lot of families are being told their kids are a little behind on things like reading, and the school can be a bit cagey about providing a lot of information to parents. I have found this all a bit disturbing.

I can offer DCs' school's writing curriculum as an example. Getting children comfortable with and confident about the process (and the wonderful rewards) of putting one's thoughts to paper was the focus during the earlier years, and things like spelling, adherence to grammar and punctuation rules, and proper paragraph structure were not emphasized over content. The kids wrote often and about everything, but their writing when compared to a child in the same grade at a more traditional school would likely have raised some people's eyebrows. The formalities of writing and correct spelling came a little later, at a time when teaching them was less likely to inhibit reluctant writers.

So they spent like 3-4 years teaching them to do it wrong then tried to fix it? Stupid

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it code for "excuses bad behavior because children are thriving at their passion?" And a lot of other therapy-speak?

Yes

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I felt our K-8 was great through 5th - fell off seriously in middle school and was not worth the tuition - seemed to me that a number of the middle school teachers took advantage of the flexibility to fail to really live up to the promise and just mailed it in and then complained about the kids. I think with middle schoolers it is much harder to motivate the kids to buy in to the approach. There were a few great teachers where the kid driven approach and curriculum were great but in most classes it was very frustrating. Don't know if that was a school specific issue or not

I think that some parents like the progressive vibe in early childhood and elementary, but then want more traditional academics for middle school or get cold feet, or their child is below grade level and they're sick of being told to wait and believe. So some of the more academically-focused families leave. People stay if they're happy with it, but also if they can't see their kid doing well elsewhere or if their kid doesn't get in elsewhere. And the kids who come in to replace the kids who leave tend to be a higher proportion ND or have other needs that make a traditional school a good fit. So the middle school population can be quite different from the elementary population in their abilities and classroom behaviors. And this is a self-reinforcing thing that grows more entrenched each year.

I posted above that progressive school was terrible for my kid with learning disabilities (we pulled her and sent her to a school with more explicit instruction) but great for my gifted kid. He's in high school now, but continued to have high performing peers through middle school. I would expect class composition to shift over the years, but based on our experience, not in the direction you suggest.

Anonymous wrote:I felt our K-8 was great through 5th - fell off seriously in middle school and was not worth the tuition - seemed to me that a number of the middle school teachers took advantage of the flexibility to fail to really live up to the promise and just mailed it in and then complained about the kids. I think with middle schoolers it is much harder to motivate the kids to buy in to the approach. There were a few great teachers where the kid driven approach and curriculum were great but in most classes it was very frustrating. Don't know if that was a school specific issue or not

I think that some parents like the progressive vibe in early childhood and elementary, but then want more traditional academics for middle school or get cold feet, or their child is below grade level and they're sick of being told to wait and believe. So some of the more academically-focused families leave. People stay if they're happy with it, but also if they can't see their kid doing well elsewhere or if their kid doesn't get in elsewhere. And the kids who come in to replace the kids who leave tend to be a higher proportion ND or have other needs that make a traditional school a good fit. So the middle school population can be quite different from the elementary population in their abilities and classroom behaviors. And this is a self-reinforcing thing that grows more entrenched each year.

I felt our K-8 was great through 5th - fell off seriously in middle school and was not worth the tuition - seemed to me that a number of the middle school teachers took advantage of the flexibility to fail to really live up to the promise and just mailed it in and then complained about the kids. I think with middle schoolers it is much harder to motivate the kids to buy in to the approach. There were a few great teachers where the kid driven approach and curriculum were great but in most classes it was very frustrating. Don't know if that was a school specific issue or not

Anonymous wrote:The school should be able to give you a plain language explanation of their methods, how they are implemented, and what the intended outcomes are. If they can't, that's definitely a red flag.

Also, "child-led" is not an excuse for giant gaping holes in the curriculum. The teacher is supposed to awaken the child's interests, not just blow off whatever doesn't happen to appeal.

I have nothing against progressive schooling in principle, it's just that some teachers are more skilled than others so you have to.choose carefully. That's the bottom line IMO.

The bolded is true everywhere. And all schools are going to have some excellent teachers, some not good teachers, and some in the middle.

The school should be able to give you a plain language explanation of their methods, how they are implemented, and what the intended outcomes are. If they can't, that's definitely a red flag.

Also, "child-led" is not an excuse for giant gaping holes in the curriculum. The teacher is supposed to awaken the child's interests, not just blow off whatever doesn't happen to appeal.

I have nothing against progressive schooling in principle, it's just that some teachers are more skilled than others so you have to.choose carefully. That's the bottom line IMO.

Anonymous wrote:For those that say you need faith it will all come together or that have otherwise had good experience, what did the experience look like to you?

At our school, I know a lot of families are being told their kids are a little behind on things like reading, and the school can be a bit cagey about providing a lot of information to parents. I have found this all a bit disturbing.

I can offer DCs' school's writing curriculum as an example. Getting children comfortable with and confident about the process (and the wonderful rewards) of putting one's thoughts to paper was the focus during the earlier years, and things like spelling, adherence to grammar and punctuation rules, and proper paragraph structure were not emphasized over content. The kids wrote often and about everything, but their writing when compared to a child in the same grade at a more traditional school would likely have raised some people's eyebrows. The formalities of writing and correct spelling came a little later, at a time when teaching them was less likely to inhibit reluctant writers.

Anonymous wrote:Isn't it code for "excuses bad behavior because children are thriving at their passion?" And a lot of other therapy-speak?

No.

Isn't it code for "excuses bad behavior because children are thriving at their passion?" And a lot of other therapy-speak?

What grade level? I'm wondering if a more traditional classical education is better for K-5 for content building, and a more progressive approach can be good for middle to upper grades. Wondering what other parents' thoughts are on this.