To 13:25 poster: Why is GDS lower school not worth it? I do not understand your conclusion that local publics are stronger.

I think we're running up against the limits of an anonymous forum. Readers don't know how to judge the credibility of posters and posters are reluctant to provide too many details when they don't know who might be reading them. On top of this we've got gridlock over the objective v. anecdotal evidence issue. The paralysis makes for more heat than light.

Anonymous wrote:So, does that mean that you have no opinion re whether the Sidwell and/or GDS lower schools (and/or middle schools) are coasting based on the reputation or performance of the upper schools?

I have absolutely no opinion on whether younger grades at GDS & Sidwell are stronger/weaker/equal to the upper grades at those school. I asked PPs to explain themselves because they had offered no basis for their claims, and because it seems like many people like to make claims about schools (particularly those schools) without having any basis. I offered up the objective data because it's the only data I've seen on the point. Truth be told, I was hoping that one of those PPs would offer up some similar objective data, but no luck there.

I suspect that the younger grades at GDS, Sidwell, and most other private schools in DC are pretty good at educating children. Exactly how good, I don't know yet. That's really why I participate in this forum, so I can try to figure out things like that.

At the end of the day, people are either happy with their public/charter school option, or in these cases, see the benefits of paying money for options considered "extras" by many, that we all had as core to our school experiences.

Validating or denigrating that decision in this forum does little to advance the debate. Doing so without anything more than anecdotal evidence is worse.

SAM2 wrote:Thanks to the PPs for clarifying that your assessment of GDS/Sidwell LS & MS are your own anecdotal experiences. There's a lot to unpack from the GDS parent's post. (Are you the same person I was trading PMs with a couple months ago?)

I did not mean to suggest that anecdotal evidence is not valid. It certainly has its place and often is the only evidence available. But I personally treat all anecdotal evidence (including even my own experiences) with a fair amount of skepticism unless it can be confirmed by objective data. (Yeah, I know, I'm a real Dorothy Parker as a dinner guest.) And on DCUM, it's even harder to decide whether anonymous reports are valid or not. So thanks for explaining the basis for your comments.

So, does that mean that you have no opinion re whether the Sidwell and/or GDS lower schools (and/or middle schools) are coasting based on the reputation or performance of the upper schools? If so, cool.

If not, and you just assume that the two posters you singled out are wrong until vindicated by "objective data," then it makes no sense because no objective data has been offered to support other opinions on this question either.

Your tone reads more like the second approach, so if that's not what you meant, you should probably clarify.

Anonymous wrote:I posted re Sidwell and, yes, I'm a parent there. I'll stand by my statement: the US is very strong and worth every penny; MS and LS, not so much.

Did your kids attend the Middle School and Lower School? If so, can you elucidate on this? Have you communicated these issue to the administration? If so, how was it received?

My child is at GDS's lower school and it is my perception that the lower school isn't as strong as the middle and upper school. The perception is based on certain observations so it is not generated in my head. But if I go into a lot of detail, I would risk giving myself away. It probably makes no sense to bring it up and refuse to say more. But I saw this thread and it resonated. A very expensive school that we are struggling to pay for is turning out not to be worth it. That is why I've participated in the thread and not because I am a troll.

Thanks to the PPs for clarifying that your assessment of GDS/Sidwell LS & MS are your own anecdotal experiences. There's a lot to unpack from the GDS parent's post. (Are you the same person I was trading PMs with a couple months ago?)

I did not mean to suggest that anecdotal evidence is not valid. It certainly has its place and often is the only evidence available. But I personally treat all anecdotal evidence (including even my own experiences) with a fair amount of skepticism unless it can be confirmed by objective data. (Yeah, I know, I'm a real Dorothy Parker as a dinner guest.) And on DCUM, it's even harder to decide whether anonymous reports are valid or not. So thanks for explaining the basis for your comments.

I posted re Sidwell and, yes, I'm a parent there. I'll stand by my statement: the US is very strong and worth every penny; MS and LS, not so much.

oops meant to say "dichotomy" between anecdotal and data-driven is a false one.

It can be a reasonable and important distinction where the data is robust.

Good god, I am glad I do not have kids at GDS.

In answer to Sam's question --

I'm the 2nd PP you quoted.

I do have a DC at GDS. I made the claim that the previous statement was probably "more true of Sidwell than GDS re the LS" based on personal experience of GDS (not true there IMO), discussion with (different) friends on faculty at each school re how well their respective LS prepares kids for the their MS/HS, and conversations with another friend who has had one kid in each LS.

I made no claim about Sidwell's MS (I don't have an opinion). My claim re GDS MS is based personal experience (both as a parent and in the classroom), while the general claim about difficulty of doing MS vs. HS well comes from professional experience including extensive discussions over time with hundred MS/HS teachers from across the country (public/private schools both) who teach same subject at different levels re their classroom/school challenges.

I don't mind being asked the basis of my opinion (and agree that skepticism of abstract claims made on DCUM is warranted). That said, I disagree with what seems to be an underlying assumption in your post that stats would necessarily trump observation on an issue like this. The question posed is very complicated to model statistically -- especially because of the combination of different entry points into the system and of differences in curriculum. And, of course, the relevant numbers are very small and largely unavailable.

So, say, for example, GDS's lower school ERBs were less impressive compared to the national average than GDS's HS ERBs are. Would that mean that the LS is coasting on the reputation of the HS? Or would that mean that standardized test scores played a major role in admission to the HS but not to the LS? Or would it mean that GDS's lower school curriculum deviated more from national norms in the order in which it taught things, but by the end of HS, everybody's been taught whatever the school is going to teach them so it's a fairer comparison?

To make this last point more concrete, if a school decides to emphasize writing over spelling at an early age and to teach foreign language and science rather than devote more time to math, but the standardized tests for those grades don't test writing, foreign language, or science, but do test math and spelling, wouldn't they be unlikely to provide a good measure of how well the unconventional school educated its kids compared to more conventional schools.

It would be interesting to see a comparison between the grades/SATs of lifers at these schools vs. later admittees. But even that evidence would be problematic for a variety of reasons -- including the fact that it's really hard to differentiate among gifted kids based on testing in the preschool years and much easier later and the fact that there's non-random attrition along the way, so it's not clear which lifers stay through senior year and how that biases the sample. And, of course, you couldn't really tell when the learning manifested by the end of HS took place for the lifers. You would also want to look at whether the scores of newcomers exceeded the scores for the lifers at the time of admission and whether the gap narrowed or widened over time. That's potentially do-able, although it's not clear that the same tests are administered (state proficiency tests vs. ERB vs SSAT) to both populations at roughly the same time.

To me, the best way to answer this specific question would be to ask Upper School teachers their sense of how well the MS (and MS teachers how well the LS) prepares kids for the next level. I'd also want to know about what feedback loops/mechanisms were in place for coordination among levels and to hear examples where complaints at the next level lead to reform below. (I do have some knowledge of this at GDS where there seems to be a good system; I don't know anything about Sidwell in this regard, except that it divides LS from MS earlier and MS shares a campus with the US rather than the LS which seems like it would increase the odds that the LS does its own thing and is less well-integrated.)

Obviously, if this were a research project, I'd try to interview a larger cross-section of teachers and make sure various fields were represented. I'd also want to interview kids (lifers and admits from each major entry year) and their parents to see whether their answers supplement, contradict, or affirm what the teachers are saying. So I'm certainly not claiming to have made a scientific study. What I am saying is that I asked the same kinds of questions of the same kinds of people that I would ask if I were doing academic research. But this was consumer research where my standard is that if what I hear from sources I consider reliable is consistent and if it makes sense of what I've seen, I'm done. Unless/until acting on that perception causes a problem and I have to re-think.

In passing, I also think it's important to remember that stats can be no less anecdotal than observation. And the one stat that you have found seems useless in answering the question being discussed here -- it's not looking school-wide (looks at the top 5 scores only), it doesn't look at HS or ES or over time or distinguish among MS educated inhouse vs. elsewhere, it's single-subject, and, of course, it doesn't include both schools being discussed.

I recognize that you know all this -- I'm just pointing out that the distinction between anecdotal and data-driven is a false one and that there's no clear hierarchy between qualitative and quantitative approaches. What I think that data could do in a case like this raise questions and challenge particular conclusions rather than give you a reliable answer one way or another. (Basically, if I were an administrator, I'd collect this data (i.e. comparing performance of lifers and kids admitted at various stages) and if it showed disparities (either way), I'd probably use it as a basis for future experimentation!!)

Is Arlington Science Focus in VA?

No. We moved and now send our kids to "Arlington Science Focus' and the academics are just as good, the environment superb and the lunches organic. For what we get now for free vs what we were getting for 60k/yr (2 kids) not worth it. Also- did not like the severe pretentiousness and as the kids got older...the attitude of some of the kids..'entitlement'. we now sock that $ into the 529s and both kids already have their college tuition basically paid for by next year.

Having gone through the admissions process in pk and k, of the big 3, sidwell's standards felt to me by far the most subjective (e.g., weak sibling policy) and the most demanding (stated emphasis on test scores).