@23:49. Odd rant. I've seen Tools of the Mind in action in two schools, and there was not a hint of chaos in either classroom. To the contrary, the kids seemed remarkably engaged and focused. The curriculum seems scripted on a very macro level, but not a micro level. The teachers take the kids on field trips, and the kids work together to build and use play stations that simulate a variety of settings (hospitals, restaurants, etc.). At other times, kids develop their own individual play plans and execute them. Seems to me there should still be plenty of opportunities for (good) experienced teachers to challenge the students and help them flourish.

If you're fixated on "academics" first, then clearly this isn't for you. But your criticism seems oddly intense as well as off the mark.

Teacher Here. Tools of the Mind is also known as FOOLS of the Mind. It is for new teachers not experienced teachers. According to the Office of Curriculum and Instruction, ALL DCPS preschools and Preks will use Fools of the Mind starting Fall 2014. There is a place for play, it's called recess and weekends. In an early childhood classroom, there are centers with play but Tools of the Mind is pure chaos in the classroom. I am glad my child will miss this implementation. I love her early childhood teachers that stressed academics, with a strong letters/phonics and numbers base. She is reading and writing, adding, subtracting and multiplying and most important to me - she can tell explain what she does and why she does it in the classroom daily.

If DCUMers aren't interested in academics, then why do we track waitlists, open houses and test scores. We want bright kids and a school that challenges them to be thinkers not players.

Letters at the end of the year???? Ridiculous....

No FOOLS OF THE MIND FOR ME or my child. What charters are using this program? Probably not many.

Anonymous wrote:Sadly I don't think Tools of the mind really does enough for less privileged children in terms of literacy. I don't mean having them read at 3 or 4, but making up for the big gaps that many low-income kids face when compared to their more affluent peers.

I disagree. The belief that underprivileged children just need a "head start" on academics and drills to close the gaps may well have contributed to perpetuate them. I'm no expert but have read as much. From experience as a parent of an upper elementary school child it also seems to me that, regardless of background, the children who do best are those who've learned to work together and figure things out without getting frustrated and demoralized. In fact, I'd say that too much emphasis on academics (vs. the socio-emotional/executive-function aspects) at an early age comes to set them back in upper elementary and middle school, when this all matters most.

Sadly I don't think Tools of the mind really does enough for less privileged children in terms of literacy. I don't mean having them read at 3 or 4, but making up for the big gaps that many low-income kids face when compared to their more affluent peers.

From what I've seen in my preKer's DCPS class, it is very scripted. It probably is frustrating for some creative teachers, as well as for those who are more comfortable with a more academic focus. I don't think our kid needed much help with executive functioning, either.

On the other hand, it is play-based and the kids seem to like it. And if it makes a socioeconomically diverse class run more smoothly and will give my daughter's less privileged classmates an academic leg up in future years, I think that on balance it's good for her. Especially since we are planning to stay at this school.

Anonymous wrote:I think we should just keep doing whatever DCPS has been doing for the last two or three decades. Anything else is just needless Rhee-form.

Agreed. Why change a winning strategy?

Anonymous wrote:personally, i think this sound great for so many reasons. i think social/emotional education is wonderful thing for individual kids and our society as a whole. most of the data that has been piling up about early childhood indicates that we think of as "academic" is really barking up the wrong tree for this age. let their minds develop in a more holistic way. if you want to supplement at home with some basic reading and writing, you can.

Absolutely. During our teacher conference (in a non-ToM classroom) our teacher kept robotically enumerating all the pedantic stuff they were going to be learning ("then we'll move on to P through T. And simple math.") I would much prefer basic socio-emotional coping skills be taught. She can learn letters from my iPhone.

Would a ToM preschool be suitable for a three-year-old who already has pretty good executive functioning skills?

I attended an open house earlier this week at a non-tools of the mind school. When I asked about tools of the mind (not that I'm wed to it, but because I've been trying to figure out what I think of it and wanted their reaction), one of the early childhood teachers made a point of coming up to me afterwards to say that tools was "entirely scripted" and that while it is good for new teachers, it does not allow for teacher flexibilty or creativity. She went on to elaborate that once a teacher learns her students, he/she may have great ideas for activities that will excite the kids and tools does not allow for that deviation from the script.

I don't know if that is a fair characterization or not, but it was interesting to hear coming from a teacher with many years of experience at one of the well-regarded east of the park schools. FWIW, she had good things to say about IB (though the school I was at is also not an IB school).

Bump

Payne

Anonymous wrote:So the current list of "known" ToM schools is:

Barnard
Garfield
Garrison
Powell
Simon

Anyone know the others?

Amidon

So the current list of "known" ToM schools is:

Barnard
Garfield
Garrison
Powell
Simon

Anyone know the others?

I think we should just keep doing whatever DCPS has been doing for the last two or three decades. Anything else is just needless Rhee-form.