Anonymous wrote:And the ones who pay 30k feel that their kid should get away with murder.

No, it seems the disruptive child's friends and family (and internet supporters) are the ones who want their 30K to include disruptive behavior. Go back to your public school and misbehave.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know someone who had other children at STA, but had one son counseled out. There were many signs that the school wasn't for the child--it was for his parents. I think he's happy with his new school. The school was very direct and let the family know they needed to make a change.

By 4th grade parents should know the path their child is on academically shouldn't they? If the signs are there in 6th wouldn't they have been there in 4th? Isn't the rule of thumb if your child is not above grade level or at definitely at grade level in every subject, they are not suited for these types of rigorous schools? I am confused why a patent would push their child to attend a school that they may struggle in. Middle school is not an easy time to transfer. If you are saying parents like this know but choose the school for themselves, that makes me sad for the child. I am surprised though that rugorous schools would admit children that are not reading and at math at or above grade level??

I think you may have a misperception about the overall strength of children attending privates - even in strong programs - there will always be a mix of abilities. The deficiencies may be overall or just in some subjects but not others. But it is just not true that every child will be an academic superstar as you suggest. That said, it is also true that there are some children who will not be challenged at their academic potential.

In the original St A example above that you quoted, it is totally understandable that siblings in the same family might fare quite differently at StA and that it might turn out that StA wasn't a good fit for a younger sibling in a family where older siblings did well. A family could start at Beauvoir and be part of the community and not have enough "issues" with a younger sibling in early years to throw up any big red flags for admission to StA's, but then later find out that even though StA's is a great fit for older brothers, that a younger one might do better in a different setting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know someone who had other children at STA, but had one son counseled out. There were many signs that the school wasn't for the child--it was for his parents. I think he's happy with his new school. The school was very direct and let the family know they needed to make a change.

By 4th grade parents should know the path their child is on academically shouldn't they? If the signs are there in 6th wouldn't they have been there in 4th? Isn't the rule of thumb if your child is not above grade level or at definitely at grade level in every subject, they are not suited for these types of rigorous schools? I am confused why a patent would push their child to attend a school that they may struggle in. Middle school is not an easy time to transfer. If you are saying parents like this know but choose the school for themselves, that makes me sad for the child. I am surprised though that rugorous schools would admit children that are not reading and at math at or above grade level??

Most counseling out is not for academics. My direct knowledge (not from my son, but through very close friends) is of counseling out for behavior issues. Although I will say that as far as I can tell, those boys were the casualty of overblown incidents, the flames of which we're being fanned by alleged victim parents. It also works the other way. Although not counseling out per say, the school will express its concerns or at least bring to a family's attention the fact that a boy might not be fitting into the social fabric of the school - that very small handful of boys who don't do well in the sports-oriented, boys will be boys, locker room environment. I know at least 3 boys over the years who fit into that category. They are all much happier at different schools, private and public.

My impression is that counseling out is generally for academics, and that sometimes a behavioral component is there also (perfectly understandable, as frustration can lead kids to act out). I'm sure there are times when behavior alone can trigger the process, but I very much doubt that in general a kid who is trouble-free in the classroom is generally going to be counseled out over an "overblown incident."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know someone who had other children at STA, but had one son counseled out. There were many signs that the school wasn't for the child--it was for his parents. I think he's happy with his new school. The school was very direct and let the family know they needed to make a change.

By 4th grade parents should know the path their child is on academically shouldn't they? If the signs are there in 6th wouldn't they have been there in 4th? Isn't the rule of thumb if your child is not above grade level or at definitely at grade level in every subject, they are not suited for these types of rigorous schools? I am confused why a patent would push their child to attend a school that they may struggle in. Middle school is not an easy time to transfer. If you are saying parents like this know but choose the school for themselves, that makes me sad for the child. I am surprised though that rugorous schools would admit children that are not reading and at math at or above grade level??

Most counseling out is not for academics. My direct knowledge (not from my son, but through very close friends) is of counseling out for behavior issues. Although I will say that as far as I can tell, those boys were the casualty of overblown incidents, the flames of which we're being fanned by alleged victim parents. It also works the other way. Although not counseling out per say, the school will express its concerns or at least bring to a family's attention the fact that a boy might not be fitting into the social fabric of the school - that very small handful of boys who don't do well in the sports-oriented, boys will be boys, locker room environment. I know at least 3 boys over the years who fit into that category. They are all much happier at different schools, private and public.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know someone who had other children at STA, but had one son counseled out. There were many signs that the school wasn't for the child--it was for his parents. I think he's happy with his new school. The school was very direct and let the family know they needed to make a change.

By 4th grade parents should know the path their child is on academically shouldn't they? If the signs are there in 6th wouldn't they have been there in 4th? Isn't the rule of thumb if your child is not above grade level or at definitely at grade level in every subject, they are not suited for these types of rigorous schools? I am confused why a patent would push their child to attend a school that they may struggle in. Middle school is not an easy time to transfer. If you are saying parents like this know but choose the school for themselves, that makes me sad for the child. I am surprised though that rugorous schools would admit children that are not reading and at math at or above grade level??

Well, you clearly have a lot to learn. Good luck to you and yours!

Anonymous wrote:I know someone who had other children at STA, but had one son counseled out. There were many signs that the school wasn't for the child--it was for his parents. I think he's happy with his new school. The school was very direct and let the family know they needed to make a change.

By 4th grade parents should know the path their child is on academically shouldn't they? If the signs are there in 6th wouldn't they have been there in 4th? Isn't the rule of thumb if your child is not above grade level or at definitely at grade level in every subject, they are not suited for these types of rigorous schools? I am confused why a patent would push their child to attend a school that they may struggle in. Middle school is not an easy time to transfer. If you are saying parents like this know but choose the school for themselves, that makes me sad for the child. I am surprised though that rugorous schools would admit children that are not reading and at math at or above grade level??

or entire classes being punished for the behavior of some...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You joke. But if there's one thing I expect my 30K per year to buy, it is a classroom free of constant disruptions from uncontrollable others.

whose parents are also paying $30,000 per year.

But, they're outnumbered 16 to 1

Actually, in some schools it's more like 32 or 48 to one. In other words, in some privates, there are 2-3 classes per grade. Every year they rotate kids all over the place, mixing up the classes. So inevitably a disruptive student will be disrupting your class. And I'm putting aside things like recess and lunch and entire class activities where disruptive student can wreak havoc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's really not for the parents to say who should be out. It's the school's job. Mix out!

That's a good idea. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to apply when a school operates as a parent co-op. Some schools do, including a few that are well-known. In these schools, it can look like parent-vs-parent bullying. Individual kids are picked on, and a small cluster of parents effectively direct the school's Head and manage many decisions, including cont'd enrollment decisions.

Ugh, yuck.

1) if my child was disruptive in class to the point that the teachers spent most of the time managing my child and that other children felt they learned less in class because of time spend managing my child - I'd 100% want to know about it. I also would not be surprised if other parents might be frustrated

2) even if my child were "happy" at that school, I'd be working to figure out a way for my child to learn how to be less disruptive to the learning of others (which, by the way, means my child would be disrupting his/her own learning) They could be tiny, slow steps, but I'd feel it was important for my child to learn how to be part of a functioning classroom so later in life they can be a part of functioning society. It's not "all about me" in this world, you need to learn to work with others.

3) if the school was ill equipped to work with me to help move my child forward in these areas, I am not sure I would consider it a good match for my child - even if the child was happy.

Our child's class has quite a few children that misbehave and for the children who are really interested in learning, it is a total bummer. I'd hope the school is working with these families over time to let them know what is going on, but somehow I doubt it for several cases (especially for some families with multiple children at school, deep connections). I don't need anyone to be counseled out - I'd just like to know that the school is being honest with the parents so they can respond as they wish. That said, if a parent truly didn't care about the reports that should be passed on - I would find it mind boggling.

I know someone who had other children at STA, but had one son counseled out. There were many signs that the school wasn't for the child--it was for his parents. I think he's happy with his new school. The school was very direct and let the family know they needed to make a change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's really not for the parents to say who should be out. It's the school's job. Mix out!

That's a good idea. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to apply when a school operates as a parent co-op. Some schools do, including a few that are well-known. In these schools, it can look like parent-vs-parent bullying. Individual kids are picked on, and a small cluster of parents effectively direct the school's Head and manage many decisions, including cont'd enrollment decisions.

Yikes. What schools do this? These would be schools we would want to avoid.

Anonymous wrote:It's really not for the parents to say who should be out. It's the school's job. Mix out!

That's a good idea. Unfortunately, it can be difficult to apply when a school operates as a parent co-op. Some schools do, including a few that are well-known. In these schools, it can look like parent-vs-parent bullying. Individual kids are picked on, and a small cluster of parents effectively direct the school's Head and manage many decisions, including cont'd enrollment decisions.

It's really not for the parents to say who should be out. It's the school's job. Mix out!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You joke. But if there's one thing I expect my 30K per year to buy, it is a classroom free of constant disruptions from uncontrollable others.

whose parents are also paying $30,000 per year.

But, they're outnumbered 16 to 1

You are mistaken. There are plenty of dopey kids who exhibit mild to severe antisocial behaviors. What it really comes down to is popularity. What it comes down to is the behaviors of a popular child might be considered mischievous, but endearly, while for another child those same behaviors which may even be a mimic of those of a popular child, will be considered antisocial and intolerable.

I'm the 16 to 1 PP.

I think we are both correct. The relative desirability of the kid in question is a factor, I have no doubt. Can this kid be easily replaced in the next admission cycle with someone just like him -- but without the challenges? If his parents give the school $25,000 every few years ... probably not. Other considerations include URM status and unusual athletic prowess.

All that said ... IF there are enough parents in the Group of 16 cited above who themselves represent something rare-ish and desirable to the school, then I firmly believe their opinion carries more weight. In particular, their opinion as to whether they must "begin to look at options" because their kid's experience is being so negatively affected by the desirable-yet-problematic kid.

It's good that your child is part of the 16 and is not the 1 being singled out. The only problem with your "private schools are selective logic" is that once you've removed the child who is not wanted, you will be left with a 15 to 1 situation. Selecting children for elimination is a morally dubious practice. Selecting children for elimination is a little bit like Sophie's Choice. It's good that your child is currently in the majority; hopefully that will never change. Hopefully, your child will never be chosen to be the 1.

Life is long, perhaps a bit of grace today will be returned to you one day in the form of kindness and understanding when you and yours find yourselves vulnerable and in need of a helping hand.

Can you point out to me where I said my child is in the group of 16 and not the one who may be counseled out?

No. You can't. And, don't shoot the messenger for reporting out accurate, real-life observations of the cesspool that is private school politics in Washington.