Reviving this thread as we are applying our kids to these two schools. Any current parents who can provide insight into the schools’ culture and academics, as well as the overall happiness/stress of the kids? We are looking for a school where kids are challenged but happy, and where kids feel supported by the school and by each other.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re GDS history

With a couple notable exceptions, the teachers aren't great and the curriculum isn't well-conceived. In theory, I agree with you that the 9th grade approach sounds promising. In practice, it hasn't worked well. Part of the problem is that an ambitious approach like that requires teachers with a kind of training/background few HS teachers (few profs, for that matter) actually have. Another part of the problem is that history gets treated less as a rigorous scholarly discipline than as a place to locate various advocacy projects. To be clear, I'm NOT saying I reject the school's politics/values. What I'm saying is that advocacy is more effective if you actually learn how/make the effort to analyze and understand issues in greater depth than GDS requires in its history classes.

Without discounting the pp's personal opinion, I feel compelled to chime in to say that I've found no evidence of the issue described in the bolded statement. My DC's 9th grade history experience was terrific and I did not see advocacy work posing as historical analysis. The freshman research paper, in particular, served as an opportunity for my young high school student to conduct a rigorous historical analysis of a (non-Western) issue of his/her choosing. My DC's teacher reviewed sources, required multiple drafts and provided excellent feedback that pushed my DC to refine his/her argument in light of the evidence proffered. The work was challenging but fulfilling and I think it prepared my DC for what lies ahead in college.

Given that each teacher and class is different, I would say that it is difficult to comprehensively label any one subject "good" or "bad" at GDS.

If the same department yields such wildly different experiences, I wouldn't call that department "strong." There's always a range of teaching ability and of teaching styles, but I think STEM, literature, and arts at GDS are all much more consistent than history. No experience with soc sci at GDS, so no opinion there.

My guess is that there are "wildly different experiences" in each subject at GDS and any other independent school for that matter. It's par for the course when teachers are given such wide latitude. Each year the interaction effect of teacher, course, and class composition yields different experiences and outcomes. Your n of 1 or 2 (and mine for that matter) is insufficient to accurately characterize the overall quality of any one department. They are simply anecdotes. Informative but not definitive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re GDS history

With a couple notable exceptions, the teachers aren't great and the curriculum isn't well-conceived. In theory, I agree with you that the 9th grade approach sounds promising. In practice, it hasn't worked well. Part of the problem is that an ambitious approach like that requires teachers with a kind of training/background few HS teachers (few profs, for that matter) actually have. Another part of the problem is that history gets treated less as a rigorous scholarly discipline than as a place to locate various advocacy projects. To be clear, I'm NOT saying I reject the school's politics/values. What I'm saying is that advocacy is more effective if you actually learn how/make the effort to analyze and understand issues in greater depth than GDS requires in its history classes.

Without discounting the pp's personal opinion, I feel compelled to chime in to say that I've found no evidence of the issue described in the bolded statement. My DC's 9th grade history experience was terrific and I did not see advocacy work posing as historical analysis. The freshman research paper, in particular, served as an opportunity for my young high school student to conduct a rigorous historical analysis of a (non-Western) issue of his/her choosing. My DC's teacher reviewed sources, required multiple drafts and provided excellent feedback that pushed my DC to refine his/her argument in light of the evidence proffered. The work was challenging but fulfilling and I think it prepared my DC for what lies ahead in college.

Given that each teacher and class is different, I would say that it is difficult to comprehensively label any one subject "good" or "bad" at GDS.

If the same department yields such wildly different experiences, I wouldn't call that department "strong." There's always a range of teaching ability and of teaching styles, but I think STEM, literature, and arts at GDS are all much more consistent than history. No experience with soc sci at GDS, so no opinion there.

Review of GDS by a former student who went on to Harvard. There is also another review of GDS from a Yale student.

https://www.prepreview.com/school/georgetown-day-school-review-harvard-university-331

Anonymous wrote:For PP (21:54) - This may have been true in the past, but it seems that Maret has really caught up in both regards: course offerings (due to being a Malone school) and college placement. This survey conducted by a tutoring service rates Maret above GDS based on several criteria: https://www.lotusprep.com/best-high-schools-dc/. 10.42% of Maret seniors went on to top 15 colleges compared to 9.54% from GDS. Anyway, seems more like "po-tay-toes, po-tah-toes" to me rather than one school being "much stronger academically" than the other...

Thanks for sharing this report - I had not seen it before. Interesting to compare with K12 Niche School rankings (I don't have the URL handy).

One issue that the GDS Upper School should address is this conception of a previous poster that "GDS has a clear focus on kids at the tip top." GDS focuses on all of its students, and they are a very diverse group in terms of talents, interests, abilities, and focus.

I have had families tell me that they chose another school over GDS because they are worried that their child would be overwhelmed by the competitive advanced math and science curriculum and environment at the school. "They are more a humanities student". In the same vein as parents have also told me their student did not apply to TJ because there are too many strong math and science students to compete with at the school.

Yes GDS has some of the very best math and science students, teachers, and offerings of any DC private school, but it is not only a STEM-focused school. And in fact I would argue that the strong arts, writing, history, music, theater, and humanities interests and talents of other GDS students forces the STEM students out of their narrow perspectives. And vice-versa.

Anonymous wrote:Re GDS history

With a couple notable exceptions, the teachers aren't great and the curriculum isn't well-conceived. In theory, I agree with you that the 9th grade approach sounds promising. In practice, it hasn't worked well. Part of the problem is that an ambitious approach like that requires teachers with a kind of training/background few HS teachers (few profs, for that matter) actually have. Another part of the problem is that history gets treated less as a rigorous scholarly discipline than as a place to locate various advocacy projects. To be clear, I'm NOT saying I reject the school's politics/values. What I'm saying is that advocacy is more effective if you actually learn how/make the effort to analyze and understand issues in greater depth than GDS requires in its history classes.

Without discounting the pp's personal opinion, I feel compelled to chime in to say that I've found no evidence of the issue described in the bolded statement. My DC's 9th grade history experience was terrific and I did not see advocacy work posing as historical analysis. The freshman research paper, in particular, served as an opportunity for my young high school student to conduct a rigorous historical analysis of a (non-Western) issue of his/her choosing. My DC's teacher reviewed sources, required multiple drafts and provided excellent feedback that pushed my DC to refine his/her argument in light of the evidence proffered. The work was challenging but fulfilling and I think it prepared my DC for what lies ahead in college.

Given that each teacher and class is different, I would say that it is difficult to comprehensively label any one subject "good" or "bad" at GDS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re GDS history

With a couple notable exceptions, the teachers aren't great and the curriculum isn't well-conceived. In theory, I agree with you that the 9th grade approach sounds promising. In practice, it hasn't worked well. Part of the problem is that an ambitious approach like that requires teachers with a kind of training/background few HS teachers (few profs, for that matter) actually have. Another part of the problem is that history gets treated less as a rigorous scholarly discipline than as a place to locate various advocacy projects. To be clear, I'm NOT saying I reject the school's politics/values. What I'm saying is that advocacy is more effective if you actually learn how/make the effort to analyze and understand issues in greater depth than GDS requires in its history classes.

Our student's experience has been so different as to make me question whether we are discussing the same high school. But I respect that different people have different opinions. The 9th grade history course in Communities and Change really exposed my student to studies they would otherwise not have explored on their own. It was briefly frustrating as they immediately wanted to study more traditional history courses, but as detailed again below, you get to those courses in due time. The first year process is engaged in by every student, it is a shared curriculum that pushes you to think, learn, and explore history outside what your natural affinities and conceptions on the subject. Upon reflection, our student does not regret anything about their studies at GDS, as the school has so many traditional and specialized offerings in the other grades. The history teachers they have been taught by have been uniformly strong, and some of their very favorites at the school.

10th Grade: European History, or World History;

11th Grade: AP U.S. History, U.S. History, or American Studies;

12th Grade: Numerous Electives, including AP U.S. Government and Politics, AP Comparative World Politics, Economics, the Middle East Since World War I, Politics and Policy, Civil Rights Movement, Mediterranean World Since World War II, American Civil War, Law & Constitutional Rights, Contemporary Issues in a Changing World: Responding to the Present through Traditional and New Media, Cultural Anthropology, and Introduction to Women’s Studies: From Feminism to Womanism.

https://www.gds.org/page/hs-curriculum-detail?from...evelNum=787&DepartmentId=15138

Anonymous wrote:Re GDS history

With a couple notable exceptions, the teachers aren't great and the curriculum isn't well-conceived. In theory, I agree with you that the 9th grade approach sounds promising. In practice, it hasn't worked well. Part of the problem is that an ambitious approach like that requires teachers with a kind of training/background few HS teachers (few profs, for that matter) actually have. Another part of the problem is that history gets treated less as a rigorous scholarly discipline than as a place to locate various advocacy projects. To be clear, I'm NOT saying I reject the school's politics/values. What I'm saying is that advocacy is more effective if you actually learn how/make the effort to analyze and understand issues in greater depth than GDS requires in its history classes.

Our student's experience has been so different as to make me question whether we are discussing the same high school. But I respect that different people have different opinions. The 9th grade history course in Communities and Change really exposed my student to studies they would otherwise not have explored on their own. It was briefly frustrating as they immediately wanted to study more traditional history courses, but as detailed again below, you get to those courses in due time. The first year process is engaged in by every student, it is a shared curriculum that pushes you to think, learn, and explore history outside what your natural affinities and conceptions on the subject. Upon reflection, our student does not regret anything about their studies at GDS, as the school has so many traditional and specialized offerings in the other grades. The history teachers they have been taught by have been uniformly strong, and some of their very favorites at the school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re GDS history

With a couple notable exceptions, the teachers aren't great and the curriculum isn't well-conceived. In theory, I agree with you that the 9th grade approach sounds promising. In practice, it hasn't worked well. Part of the problem is that an ambitious approach like that requires teachers with a kind of training/background few HS teachers (few profs, for that matter) actually have. Another part of the problem is that history gets treated less as a rigorous scholarly discipline than as a place to locate various advocacy projects. To be clear, I'm NOT saying I reject the school's politics/values. What I'm saying is that advocacy is more effective if you actually learn how/make the effort to analyze and understand issues in greater depth than GDS requires in its history classes.

When you move beyond 9th grade your student will look back, reflect, and hopefully see the value and merit in the curriculum decision. GDS has excellent history teachers and course offerings, many traditional, some more specialized and interesting in the 10th, 11th, and 12th grades that will leave your student very well prepared for college, and allow them to delve more seriously into the subject if that is their interest.

Didn't happen. 9th/11th functioned as aversion therapy wrt history. (10th grade teacher was excellent). Some of the same issues got handled much better in lit (and language) classes and DC remained interested in them, so it wasn't topics.

I cannot imagine that Maret - a school of incredible quality so dedicated to the growth of each individual - would allow the academic ambitions of its students to be thwarted due to the school's small size. If Maret doesn't offer a class and a student cannot take it through MSON, I would think that the school would arrange for the student to take a course at a local university.

Can any Maret parents speak to this?



We have sent our children through Maret and have not seen Maret arrange for any children to take classes at a local university.

We have had one of our DC, a very motivated student, find a class offering at a local university that DC then went and jumped through hoops ( with a lot of self advocating) to get approved for credit.

Maret has many diverse offerings and the school is very confident that they can accommodate the majority if not all of its' students needs. In our experience, we have found this to be the case, and of our multiple children, only one had the desire/motivation to look for a class outside of the course offerings. But the school did not find the class for DC and while they eventually signed off on it, the legwork is supposed to be done by the student.

Anonymous wrote:Re GDS history

With a couple notable exceptions, the teachers aren't great and the curriculum isn't well-conceived. In theory, I agree with you that the 9th grade approach sounds promising. In practice, it hasn't worked well. Part of the problem is that an ambitious approach like that requires teachers with a kind of training/background few HS teachers (few profs, for that matter) actually have. Another part of the problem is that history gets treated less as a rigorous scholarly discipline than as a place to locate various advocacy projects. To be clear, I'm NOT saying I reject the school's politics/values. What I'm saying is that advocacy is more effective if you actually learn how/make the effort to analyze and understand issues in greater depth than GDS requires in its history classes.

When you move beyond 9th grade your student will look back, reflect, and hopefully see the value and merit in the curriculum decision. GDS has excellent history teachers and course offerings, many traditional, some more specialized and interesting in the 10th, 11th, and 12th grades that will leave your student very well prepared for college, and allow them to delve more seriously into the subject if that is their interest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lit and arts are strong at GDS, but history is not.

Curious why you say this. GDS does not have a traditional Europe-heavy curriculum, but the choice to focus on "doing" local history and then focusing on modern conflicts in 9th grade seems like an innovative way to get students to understand what historians do and how history is written and to set the stage for future discussions of how the past affects and illuminates the present.

-Parent of child considering GDS for HS

As the parent of a student in the Upper School I disagree on this point. Again, I have the comparison of my other children at top private schools, to compare them to. Like my other children, DC has taken:

10th Grade: European History, or World History;

11th Grade: AP U.S. History, U.S. History, or American Studies;

12th Grade: Numerous Electives, including AP U.S. Government and Politics, AP Comparative World Politics, Economics, the Middle East Since World War I, Politics and Policy, Civil Rights Movement, Mediterranean World Since World War II, American Civil War, Law & Constitutional Rights, Contemporary Issues in a Changing World: Responding to the Present through Traditional and New Media, Cultural Anthropology, and Introduction to Women’s Studies: From Feminism to Womanism.

https://www.gds.org/page/hs-curriculum-detail?fromId=203490&LevelNum=787&DepartmentId=15138

Re GDS history

With a couple notable exceptions, the teachers aren't great and the curriculum isn't well-conceived. In theory, I agree with you that the 9th grade approach sounds promising. In practice, it hasn't worked well. Part of the problem is that an ambitious approach like that requires teachers with a kind of training/background few HS teachers (few profs, for that matter) actually have. Another part of the problem is that history gets treated less as a rigorous scholarly discipline than as a place to locate various advocacy projects. To be clear, I'm NOT saying I reject the school's politics/values. What I'm saying is that advocacy is more effective if you actually learn how/make the effort to analyze and understand issues in greater depth than GDS requires in its history classes.

Anonymous wrote:Lit and arts are strong at GDS, but history is not.

Curious why you say this. GDS does not have a traditional Europe-heavy curriculum, but the choice to focus on "doing" local history and then focusing on modern conflicts in 9th grade seems like an innovative way to get students to understand what historians do and how history is written and to set the stage for future discussions of how the past affects and illuminates the present.

-Parent of child considering GDS for HS