How does alternative education work?
October 24, 2011 4:24 PM Subscribe
If you received an alternative education as a child (Summerhill, Waldorf, Montesorri, whole child, constructivist), what did you like about it? What did you not like?
We're considering switching our daughter from a traditional public school second grade to an alternative school that describes itself as following a "whole child curriculum." As far as the literature goes, it takes into account the social and emotional well-being of the child, seeing the child as a developing citizen, teaches critical thinking, resourcefulness, responsibility through projects tailored to the individual or classroom interests, etc. They group the children in large pods (K-2, 3-4) for some activities and then break into smaller classes for other times of the day (2nd grade, etc). There are no letter grades until 7th grade, only meetings with teachers and twice a year written assessments to parents. As far as what I saw on the tour today, by comparison to my child's current classroom, it was pretty wild. There were things that I really liked and at other times I found myself wondering, "does this work?" There were lots of kids at tables working in groups, talking, arguing, joking, etc. I liked that but also wondered how a kid concentrates on some difficult subjects in that environment. The K-2 "pod" were working on the floor with blocks and the objective was to create a pattern in small groups, making sure to incorporate all of the children's ideas in the group. This would be unheard of in my daughter's class where everyone works individually, there is no talking, and no floor block work.
The children are also reading and doing math on a different level than my daughter's current class. I realize that if we switch my daughter, she will be at a much higher reading level and a bit higher in math, but maybe that all doesn't really matter. I would have to let go of the standards that her current school has set and trust that the slower, more relaxed pace will be fine, if not much better. Things I liked: I like the fact that it's a much smaller school because as it is now, her large school can be a bit overwhelming and it's hard to keep friends when you switch classrooms ever year. I liked the looser collaborative environment and social-emotional emphasis since she tends toward being quiet, shy and anxious. And I liked the more relaxed pace for her since struggling with the amount of homework she has (but obviously I feel unsure about that part).
I realize that you don't know the specific school I'm talking about, but if this sounds at all familiar, I'd like to hear from you. I'm interested in hearing from adults who went through an "alternative" education, whatever it was. What were the advantages? What did you learn that maybe the more traditional schools skipped? What were the disadvantages?
PS. Yes, I am planning to seek out current parents at the school to ask them more about the specifics.
We're considering switching our daughter from a traditional public school second grade to an alternative school that describes itself as following a "whole child curriculum." As far as the literature goes, it takes into account the social and emotional well-being of the child, seeing the child as a developing citizen, teaches critical thinking, resourcefulness, responsibility through projects tailored to the individual or classroom interests, etc. They group the children in large pods (K-2, 3-4) for some activities and then break into smaller classes for other times of the day (2nd grade, etc). There are no letter grades until 7th grade, only meetings with teachers and twice a year written assessments to parents. As far as what I saw on the tour today, by comparison to my child's current classroom, it was pretty wild. There were things that I really liked and at other times I found myself wondering, "does this work?" There were lots of kids at tables working in groups, talking, arguing, joking, etc. I liked that but also wondered how a kid concentrates on some difficult subjects in that environment. The K-2 "pod" were working on the floor with blocks and the objective was to create a pattern in small groups, making sure to incorporate all of the children's ideas in the group. This would be unheard of in my daughter's class where everyone works individually, there is no talking, and no floor block work.
The children are also reading and doing math on a different level than my daughter's current class. I realize that if we switch my daughter, she will be at a much higher reading level and a bit higher in math, but maybe that all doesn't really matter. I would have to let go of the standards that her current school has set and trust that the slower, more relaxed pace will be fine, if not much better. Things I liked: I like the fact that it's a much smaller school because as it is now, her large school can be a bit overwhelming and it's hard to keep friends when you switch classrooms ever year. I liked the looser collaborative environment and social-emotional emphasis since she tends toward being quiet, shy and anxious. And I liked the more relaxed pace for her since struggling with the amount of homework she has (but obviously I feel unsure about that part).
I realize that you don't know the specific school I'm talking about, but if this sounds at all familiar, I'd like to hear from you. I'm interested in hearing from adults who went through an "alternative" education, whatever it was. What were the advantages? What did you learn that maybe the more traditional schools skipped? What were the disadvantages?
PS. Yes, I am planning to seek out current parents at the school to ask them more about the specifics.
I was homeschooled, so I think I can speak from something like experience here. I grew up in a fairly robust homeschooling community, and there were almost as many educational approaches as there were families. The one trend I did notice is that the people who were the most sold on their particular philosophy--usually imported wholesale from some guru--tended to be, well, the weirdest, basically.
I really appreciate the fact that my parents homeschooled me. I went to a private school for 1st-4th and was bored out of my skull. When they brought me home, I could go at my own pace, spending more time on things I needed/wanted to and breezing through stuff that I could. But we also did stuff that just wasn't going to be taught in public schools most of the time, e.g. a three-year art history curriculum, a decent amount of medieval history, theology, an intensive writing course, and a bunch of college courses, to the point that I started college with 30 credits.
Here's the thing: beyond certain fundamentals like whether you think textbooks are okay or not,* educational philosophies are really just tools. Some tools are right for some jobs, some for others, but none are right for all jobs. Similarly, some kids may thrive in one environment constructed around one educational philosophy, some in others. My sister and I did great homeschooling, but it wasn't right for my brother, so he went to a private classical school for high school. I wound up teaching there for a year after college, and while most of the kids were really thriving, there were some who just couldn't keep up, and who did much better in a traditional public school. I've known homeschooling families who have used a different math curriculum for each of their kids, because their kids are different and do better with different approaches.
The question here is less what you think is the "best" educational philosophy but whether you think this particular school is the best option for your particular child. You do probably need to figure out exactly what you're going for here, as the various educational philosophies don't actually have the same goals a lot of the time, even when they do work the way they're supposed to.
But I'd caution you that there's "alternative" and there's alternative. A kid who goes to a public school and a kid who goes to a more-or-less traditional private school will have relatively little difficulty transitioning both between institutions of those sorts and to college classes, which operate in many ways along the same lines. Even many homeschooling kids find that their classes aren't that different from public school curricula, sometimes even using the same books. But it sounds like this school is really different, to the point that should things not work out for whatever reason--or if you just have to move--that going back to another school could be a real challenge. A public school might not even know what grade to put her in, and that aside, she could wind up losing a year just because she isn't acclimated to putting her nose to the grindstone and just doing real work.
More particularly, you're looking at a school that seems to be run by people who want to take an active interest in "the social and emotional well-being of the child". That's all well and good, but what if what you think is in your child's best social and emotional interests is not what the teachers think is in said interests? Myself, I'd be pretty skeptical about that, as I'm likely coming from a very different direction than they are, so I'd be suspicious of their value system. Maybe you aren't, but you should at least figure out what they think is important.
Ultimately though, we don't know your daughter. You and your spouse do. The two of you are going to need to sit down and figure out what you think would be best for her, then look around to see what options are available.
*And even more fundamentally, whether you think people in general and children in particular will simply do what's right if you make it attractive enough or if they require some kind of discipline to become virtuous people. That question may well be the most fundamental issue in pedagogy.
posted by valkyryn at 4:46 PM on October 24, 2011 [14 favorites]
I really appreciate the fact that my parents homeschooled me. I went to a private school for 1st-4th and was bored out of my skull. When they brought me home, I could go at my own pace, spending more time on things I needed/wanted to and breezing through stuff that I could. But we also did stuff that just wasn't going to be taught in public schools most of the time, e.g. a three-year art history curriculum, a decent amount of medieval history, theology, an intensive writing course, and a bunch of college courses, to the point that I started college with 30 credits.
Here's the thing: beyond certain fundamentals like whether you think textbooks are okay or not,* educational philosophies are really just tools. Some tools are right for some jobs, some for others, but none are right for all jobs. Similarly, some kids may thrive in one environment constructed around one educational philosophy, some in others. My sister and I did great homeschooling, but it wasn't right for my brother, so he went to a private classical school for high school. I wound up teaching there for a year after college, and while most of the kids were really thriving, there were some who just couldn't keep up, and who did much better in a traditional public school. I've known homeschooling families who have used a different math curriculum for each of their kids, because their kids are different and do better with different approaches.
The question here is less what you think is the "best" educational philosophy but whether you think this particular school is the best option for your particular child. You do probably need to figure out exactly what you're going for here, as the various educational philosophies don't actually have the same goals a lot of the time, even when they do work the way they're supposed to.
But I'd caution you that there's "alternative" and there's alternative. A kid who goes to a public school and a kid who goes to a more-or-less traditional private school will have relatively little difficulty transitioning both between institutions of those sorts and to college classes, which operate in many ways along the same lines. Even many homeschooling kids find that their classes aren't that different from public school curricula, sometimes even using the same books. But it sounds like this school is really different, to the point that should things not work out for whatever reason--or if you just have to move--that going back to another school could be a real challenge. A public school might not even know what grade to put her in, and that aside, she could wind up losing a year just because she isn't acclimated to putting her nose to the grindstone and just doing real work.
More particularly, you're looking at a school that seems to be run by people who want to take an active interest in "the social and emotional well-being of the child". That's all well and good, but what if what you think is in your child's best social and emotional interests is not what the teachers think is in said interests? Myself, I'd be pretty skeptical about that, as I'm likely coming from a very different direction than they are, so I'd be suspicious of their value system. Maybe you aren't, but you should at least figure out what they think is important.
Ultimately though, we don't know your daughter. You and your spouse do. The two of you are going to need to sit down and figure out what you think would be best for her, then look around to see what options are available.
*And even more fundamentally, whether you think people in general and children in particular will simply do what's right if you make it attractive enough or if they require some kind of discipline to become virtuous people. That question may well be the most fundamental issue in pedagogy.
posted by valkyryn at 4:46 PM on October 24, 2011 [14 favorites]
OK so I didn't go to one of those types of schools, but my niece and a girl I dated for a while both absolutely hated montessori schools, as young adults they were scarred by it and felt that they absolutely treaded water while at those schools. They both asked, nay demanded, that their parents move them to more traditional school environments. Both quite bright, didn't feel that they got any attention or were learning anything, were held back by kids clowning around and being 'free', both strongly desired a more structured environment and wanted more literacy and numeracy teaching.
Both of a quite scientific, rational, rules driven mindset (unlike their parents).
Anecdotes, sure... and it's very much situational for your child.
posted by wilful at 4:49 PM on October 24, 2011 [2 favorites]
Both of a quite scientific, rational, rules driven mindset (unlike their parents).
Anecdotes, sure... and it's very much situational for your child.
posted by wilful at 4:49 PM on October 24, 2011 [2 favorites]
I went to Montesorri through first grade. I liked it myself because it felt like I could do whatever I wanted except when we were doing fun craft stuff, but then it was sorta fun and sorta boring later when I already knew stuff like fractions and multiplication years later when I went to regular public school and had to go through it again.
posted by cmoj at 4:50 PM on October 24, 2011
posted by cmoj at 4:50 PM on October 24, 2011
My brother started an open classroom in 4th grade and my folks were very surprised when he didn't do well. He switched back to a quite traditional classroom after that and did well, appreciating the structure. On the other hand, a lot of kids do really well with them - it all depends on the kid.
posted by ldthomps at 4:56 PM on October 24, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by ldthomps at 4:56 PM on October 24, 2011 [1 favorite]
I went to something similar to that in primary school--it was actually part of the public school system, but sort of an experimental classroom. It was K-2 in one classroom, very "move at your own pace." It was great for me, but I was, shall we say, a highly motivated child--I was going to work hard regardless, it just took the whole fear of failure off of me. It also helped be more social than I would have been--when I moved into a more traditional classroom in third grade, it was harder to do that.
But a lot of it depends on 1) the teachers in question and 2) the individual child. My little sister didn't do nearly as well in that kind of environment--she needed more structure. Kids who know how to/want to play the system will have a field day gaming that kind of system. And it really has to be the right kind of teacher.
posted by kittenmarlowe at 5:03 PM on October 24, 2011
But a lot of it depends on 1) the teachers in question and 2) the individual child. My little sister didn't do nearly as well in that kind of environment--she needed more structure. Kids who know how to/want to play the system will have a field day gaming that kind of system. And it really has to be the right kind of teacher.
posted by kittenmarlowe at 5:03 PM on October 24, 2011
I went to a Montessori school in India so my experiences may not be completely relevant. I'm sure there are some commonalities to such schools here though.
Things I liked:
Working at our own pace, on activities we liked. My mother says that all I wanted to do when I first went to school (kindergarten) was play in the sand, and I was allowed to do six months of this before I even entered the classroom.
Small classes. I didn't even realize how awesome this was until I moved to a larger school in 11th grade. All my classes had 10-18 people.
Little emphasis on grades.
Great activities, excursions, plays and so forth.
Mixed age group classrooms.
Things I disliked:
Towards the end of my time there I began to wish I had more competition. I was academically ahead of most of my peers and there were few people in my class interested in scientific subjects. It seemed that everyone wanted to go into the humanities or business.
Small classes. Somewhat related to the above, but I sometimes wished for a larger cast of people in my life.
I guess overall I'd recommend the experience highly until grade 6 or so. Beyond that it depends on how competitive the child is themselves.
posted by peacheater at 5:25 PM on October 24, 2011 [1 favorite]
Things I liked:
Working at our own pace, on activities we liked. My mother says that all I wanted to do when I first went to school (kindergarten) was play in the sand, and I was allowed to do six months of this before I even entered the classroom.
Small classes. I didn't even realize how awesome this was until I moved to a larger school in 11th grade. All my classes had 10-18 people.
Little emphasis on grades.
Great activities, excursions, plays and so forth.
Mixed age group classrooms.
Things I disliked:
Towards the end of my time there I began to wish I had more competition. I was academically ahead of most of my peers and there were few people in my class interested in scientific subjects. It seemed that everyone wanted to go into the humanities or business.
Small classes. Somewhat related to the above, but I sometimes wished for a larger cast of people in my life.
I guess overall I'd recommend the experience highly until grade 6 or so. Beyond that it depends on how competitive the child is themselves.
posted by peacheater at 5:25 PM on October 24, 2011 [1 favorite]
I spent k-3 in a montessori school. I liked that I could do my own thing and read a lot (a lot). When I transitioned to public school, I did not like that my penmanship was not what the teachers expected, and I couldn't do the times table to save my life. It also took me a while to figure out how a regular classroom worked, what with sitting in one place and listening to the teacher all day long.
I think the risk with the self-directed modes is that your kid will spend lots of time doing what she's good at or already likes, and very little doing the work that is not as much fun but just as important. I caught up in penmanship and math, but it wasn't an easy transition.
I think socially it was fine -- I was shy until high school, and I had a few good friends in montessori, and a few good friends in public school. If your little girl is quiet, you may risk her being overpowered by the louder kids.
posted by freshwater at 5:31 PM on October 24, 2011
I think the risk with the self-directed modes is that your kid will spend lots of time doing what she's good at or already likes, and very little doing the work that is not as much fun but just as important. I caught up in penmanship and math, but it wasn't an easy transition.
I think socially it was fine -- I was shy until high school, and I had a few good friends in montessori, and a few good friends in public school. If your little girl is quiet, you may risk her being overpowered by the louder kids.
posted by freshwater at 5:31 PM on October 24, 2011
My brother spent three years at a Rudolf Steiner School. My parents sent him there instead of a "normal" secondary school because he was diagnosed as dyspraxic very late in his primary schooling, and as a result had very low self-esteem because his teachers assumed he was slow. My mum wanted him to be in a smaller classroom with a more flexible curriculum so he could learn to stop judging himself by the usual scholastic parameters.
My brother hated that school. Many of his close friends were excluded temporarily or permanently (just because it's not a usual system of rules and behaviour, doesn't mean the school is any less stringent in enforcing it). He resented learning seemingly useless and juvenile subjects like eurythmy and salt-dough art projects. The clothes policy (no brands/logos/trainers) felt as restrictive as a uniform policy. Basically he feels like the alternative mantra is a sham, and from his retelling of the actual system and teaching I'm inclined to agree.
However, the reason why I'm answering your question and not him is that I think as an outside observer I can see the ways in which the school benefited him. He grew immensely in confidence - when he was moved to a large state school he was a straight-A student. He still keeps in contact with his Steiner schoolmates more than ten years later. He's very creative and expressive and always thinks outside the box (he's now a theatre practitioner). He's extroverted while remaining conscientious - a very popular guy.
Lastly, just wanted to say that I used to work with children aged 5-8 as a Kids Club Co-ordinator. It was in an affluent area, and as such had quite a few children from local Montessori and Steiner schools. On the whole, those children could interact well with each other but found it difficult to integrate with children from regular schools. Your child's mileage will undoubtedly vary.
posted by dumdidumdum at 5:32 PM on October 24, 2011
My brother hated that school. Many of his close friends were excluded temporarily or permanently (just because it's not a usual system of rules and behaviour, doesn't mean the school is any less stringent in enforcing it). He resented learning seemingly useless and juvenile subjects like eurythmy and salt-dough art projects. The clothes policy (no brands/logos/trainers) felt as restrictive as a uniform policy. Basically he feels like the alternative mantra is a sham, and from his retelling of the actual system and teaching I'm inclined to agree.
However, the reason why I'm answering your question and not him is that I think as an outside observer I can see the ways in which the school benefited him. He grew immensely in confidence - when he was moved to a large state school he was a straight-A student. He still keeps in contact with his Steiner schoolmates more than ten years later. He's very creative and expressive and always thinks outside the box (he's now a theatre practitioner). He's extroverted while remaining conscientious - a very popular guy.
Lastly, just wanted to say that I used to work with children aged 5-8 as a Kids Club Co-ordinator. It was in an affluent area, and as such had quite a few children from local Montessori and Steiner schools. On the whole, those children could interact well with each other but found it difficult to integrate with children from regular schools. Your child's mileage will undoubtedly vary.
posted by dumdidumdum at 5:32 PM on October 24, 2011
OK so I didn't go to one of those types of schools, but my niece and a girl I dated for a while both absolutely hated montessori schools, as young adults they were scarred by it and felt that they absolutely treaded water while at those schools.
I went to a Montessori school through 6th grade, and felt the same way. When I did switch to a traditional school in 7th grade, I didn't know how to write an essay, study for a test, or take notes. I recovered (I'm getting my PhD now, so I obviously learned how to deal with school), and maybe long-term I was better off being able to pursue my interests (reading historical fiction all day, every day)-- but it took a while, was really unpleasant, and hindered my social development (because I was so busy trying to play catch-up). Montessori for preschool and even early elementary is nice, but past second or third grade, there are some serious downsides.
posted by oinopaponton at 5:43 PM on October 24, 2011
I went to a Montessori school through 6th grade, and felt the same way. When I did switch to a traditional school in 7th grade, I didn't know how to write an essay, study for a test, or take notes. I recovered (I'm getting my PhD now, so I obviously learned how to deal with school), and maybe long-term I was better off being able to pursue my interests (reading historical fiction all day, every day)-- but it took a while, was really unpleasant, and hindered my social development (because I was so busy trying to play catch-up). Montessori for preschool and even early elementary is nice, but past second or third grade, there are some serious downsides.
posted by oinopaponton at 5:43 PM on October 24, 2011
Based on my experience at a number of alternative schools, I'd be careful to investigate whether your kid will be able to participate in sports/music/drama. Now that families live so far apart, these are basically the way kids make friends and build their identity. Most alternative schools are too small to have much in that department, so you're expected to drive your kid around to non-school-affiliated activities. If you can't do that, your kid may have a hard time making friends.
posted by miyabo at 5:45 PM on October 24, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by miyabo at 5:45 PM on October 24, 2011 [1 favorite]
I went to a democratic hippie school: still pretty far out of the mainstream, but not as unschooly as Summerhill. My school had a lot of consensus and democracy and respect for your feelings, man, but also had some (semi-)traditional academics. Academics tended to be taught in mixed-age groups and were not graded.
Things that are not awesome about hippie school:
*For certain kids, they can inspire drifting. (I was not that kid and in general I think that my particular school did value things like math and reading and tried to get kids interested in them.)
*There was an emphasis on "they'll learn when they're ready" that meant that I couldn't tell time until a weirdly late age.
*Early introduction to Meeting Culture.
*Not awesome at teaching math. (On the other hand, I think research has found that mainstream public schools have this same issue - this is a pervasive problem.)
*Full of people who believe in homeopathics or think that vaccines cause clubfoot or whatever.
Things that are great about a good hippie school:
*I think that mixed-age groups are awesome. I think when done right they help to prevent cruelty and engender kindness and respectful behavior.
*Small classes.
*A culture of treating kids like humans who deserve respect, instead of as people who are in need of a lecture.
*Positive discipline/no shaming.
*A school culture that takes emotional development seriously.
*Teachers often provide modeling and other practical tools to help kids develop good communication skills.
*Zero tolerance for bullying.
*Kids are taught to value other perspectives, to hold tolerance as a virtue.
*Great at teaching the language arts and getting kids excited about reading and writing.
*Great at encouraging wild creativity among the students.
*When done very well, can be great at helping kids internalize academic motivation (strive to be better at reading for yourself, not to avoid punishment, etc.)
The things I especially value about my hippie school background: I value gentleness and strive to do better in that area every day. I feel comfortable questioning authority. I have little tolerance for bullying behavior, even as an adult. Basically the two things I would have questions about if thinking about sending my kid to hippie school would be: "How do you teach math?" and "How do you help kids learn that putting effort into something difficult is valuable?" but to be honest those are also the main questions I would have at the most mainstream of schools.
I would be pretty leery of a Waldorf school, even though I find their general esthetic totally seductive: Waldorf, to me, has a uniquely wacky set of beliefs (i.e. the way they handle reading) that I'm not sure I could overlook to get to the gnomes and wood toys.
posted by thehmsbeagle at 5:50 PM on October 24, 2011 [14 favorites]
Things that are not awesome about hippie school:
*For certain kids, they can inspire drifting. (I was not that kid and in general I think that my particular school did value things like math and reading and tried to get kids interested in them.)
*There was an emphasis on "they'll learn when they're ready" that meant that I couldn't tell time until a weirdly late age.
*Early introduction to Meeting Culture.
*Not awesome at teaching math. (On the other hand, I think research has found that mainstream public schools have this same issue - this is a pervasive problem.)
*Full of people who believe in homeopathics or think that vaccines cause clubfoot or whatever.
Things that are great about a good hippie school:
*I think that mixed-age groups are awesome. I think when done right they help to prevent cruelty and engender kindness and respectful behavior.
*Small classes.
*A culture of treating kids like humans who deserve respect, instead of as people who are in need of a lecture.
*Positive discipline/no shaming.
*A school culture that takes emotional development seriously.
*Teachers often provide modeling and other practical tools to help kids develop good communication skills.
*Zero tolerance for bullying.
*Kids are taught to value other perspectives, to hold tolerance as a virtue.
*Great at teaching the language arts and getting kids excited about reading and writing.
*Great at encouraging wild creativity among the students.
*When done very well, can be great at helping kids internalize academic motivation (strive to be better at reading for yourself, not to avoid punishment, etc.)
The things I especially value about my hippie school background: I value gentleness and strive to do better in that area every day. I feel comfortable questioning authority. I have little tolerance for bullying behavior, even as an adult. Basically the two things I would have questions about if thinking about sending my kid to hippie school would be: "How do you teach math?" and "How do you help kids learn that putting effort into something difficult is valuable?" but to be honest those are also the main questions I would have at the most mainstream of schools.
I would be pretty leery of a Waldorf school, even though I find their general esthetic totally seductive: Waldorf, to me, has a uniquely wacky set of beliefs (i.e. the way they handle reading) that I'm not sure I could overlook to get to the gnomes and wood toys.
posted by thehmsbeagle at 5:50 PM on October 24, 2011 [14 favorites]
Sent middle child to alternative school from 5th-7th grades. She loved it mostly, still deeply connected with some of those classmates many years later BUT the downsides were magnified by its tiny size. Mainly suited her needs.at the time but wouldn't have been a good sort of setting for high school in terms of range of options or academic rigor. I think you have to look very carefully at how they teach hard skills like reading/writing and math as well as the overall social feel.
If your child will do better in a more structured setting will this school provide it? Are you ready to have to drive a lot more and go to a lot more effort to facilitate social connections? Do the values of the school and its culture mesh well with yours? Those were key things for us and worked out well for us. And one more - if it's a private school what will it do to your finances? It's very easy to spend a LOT of money on private schooling and can be well worth it but will have an impact down the road come college time too.
posted by leslies at 5:54 PM on October 24, 2011
If your child will do better in a more structured setting will this school provide it? Are you ready to have to drive a lot more and go to a lot more effort to facilitate social connections? Do the values of the school and its culture mesh well with yours? Those were key things for us and worked out well for us. And one more - if it's a private school what will it do to your finances? It's very easy to spend a LOT of money on private schooling and can be well worth it but will have an impact down the road come college time too.
posted by leslies at 5:54 PM on October 24, 2011
I went to a school like that for 1st-6th grades--mixed-grade classrooms, no grades, breakout sessions in smaller groups, etc.
The school was small, probably too small, and I think that was the biggest disadvantage. It's confining to be in classes with the same ten kids for all of elementary school and have the same teacher for three years in a row! Your kid has a conflict with a teacher's style or acts out when they're with another specific kid? Tough luck, there's no other class to transfer them to. So if the school is that small, make sure you like all the teachers... Parents tended to pull their kids out and put them in more traditional schools as the kids got older, so by the time we got to sixth grade (the highest offered) the class had almost evaporated. This was not a good thing. By the time I was in 5th/6th grade, I had probably outgrown the school.
On the other hand, there was some truly great curriculum stuff. We had a fantastic, very hands-on science curriculum involving testing the water quality of the river, sampling it for different kinds of life, etc. and for some reason we learned triangulation which will be helpful if any of us become 19th century sailors. (Checking out the school web page, I see that not only are they still teaching the same curriculum, but now they're having kids made podcasts about their findings. Modern technology!) To learn grammar and punctuation, we set up a class editing "business" and scoured printed material for things like missing commas and misused apostrophes, then composed formal business letters to the writers informing of them of the editing mistakes. Curricula were integrated throughout classes, so e.g. if we were learning about westward expansion in history, then music class would be songs from the Oregon Trail and English would be historical fiction about the period...it was all kind of neat.
It concerns me a bit that you say the school is not up to par with the regular school in the kids' writing and math skills. My elementary school was not producing kids who could do calculus in 7th grade or anything, but they were aware that the kids would have to transition to a more traditional school eventually and made sure that we learned enough to be able to make that leap smoothly without having a skills deficit. Being behind would have made that really tough. And as a poster mentioned above, in a small school it may be hard for your kid to get advanced work if she needs it.
posted by phoenixy at 5:56 PM on October 24, 2011
The school was small, probably too small, and I think that was the biggest disadvantage. It's confining to be in classes with the same ten kids for all of elementary school and have the same teacher for three years in a row! Your kid has a conflict with a teacher's style or acts out when they're with another specific kid? Tough luck, there's no other class to transfer them to. So if the school is that small, make sure you like all the teachers... Parents tended to pull their kids out and put them in more traditional schools as the kids got older, so by the time we got to sixth grade (the highest offered) the class had almost evaporated. This was not a good thing. By the time I was in 5th/6th grade, I had probably outgrown the school.
On the other hand, there was some truly great curriculum stuff. We had a fantastic, very hands-on science curriculum involving testing the water quality of the river, sampling it for different kinds of life, etc. and for some reason we learned triangulation which will be helpful if any of us become 19th century sailors. (Checking out the school web page, I see that not only are they still teaching the same curriculum, but now they're having kids made podcasts about their findings. Modern technology!) To learn grammar and punctuation, we set up a class editing "business" and scoured printed material for things like missing commas and misused apostrophes, then composed formal business letters to the writers informing of them of the editing mistakes. Curricula were integrated throughout classes, so e.g. if we were learning about westward expansion in history, then music class would be songs from the Oregon Trail and English would be historical fiction about the period...it was all kind of neat.
It concerns me a bit that you say the school is not up to par with the regular school in the kids' writing and math skills. My elementary school was not producing kids who could do calculus in 7th grade or anything, but they were aware that the kids would have to transition to a more traditional school eventually and made sure that we learned enough to be able to make that leap smoothly without having a skills deficit. Being behind would have made that really tough. And as a poster mentioned above, in a small school it may be hard for your kid to get advanced work if she needs it.
posted by phoenixy at 5:56 PM on October 24, 2011
My siblings and I were in Montessori when we were young before moving to a traditional elementary school; later, my best friend ended up in an 'alternative' education track for her math classes in high school that borrowed liberally several of the principles about learning that Montessori and other similar programs hold.
If I were to generalize I'd say that something like Montessori is more valuable for young kids--like age 10 and under--when the emphasis is more on learning social skills and developing attitudes towards learning and school itself. Once you start talking about older kids, in the upper grades of elementary school through high school, alternative education can definitely start to be more of a hindrance as they are losing out on "traditional" academic skills (how to write an essay, how to do long division) that they need to know to survive and thrive in college. Also, so much will depend on the individual child; I really did well as a young kid in Montessori because I was very motivated and easily learned new skills with relatively little guidance, while my brothers struggled with undiagnosed learning disabilities. In fact, my brothers didn't properly learn to read until 8th grade, and I think a big part of that was missing out on the traditional approach where a teacher might have noticed their problems and intervened.
As soon as you start talking about middle school or high school I think alternative schooling methods start to have sharp disadvantages even for relatively bright students. My best friend, who was very smart and did very well in math classes through middle school, felt like she really missed the boat on key skills by enrolling in the 'alternative' math curriculum that focused on things like 'intuitive understanding' and word problems to the exclusion of memorization of the rules of geometry and pre-algebra. She believes (and I concur) that had she remained in traditional math courses she probably would have ended up in a field like computer science in college; the fact that she didn't have the foundation to really take any non-remedial math classes effectively ruled out a lot of fields which in turn shaped the career opportunities she has today. She has a great life and a good job but if she could go back, she would have chosen differently as she feels the story she was told about how much better it was to avoid rote learning and memorization really discounted the fact that sometimes you need to learn the basics through brute force in order to have any hope of moving on to the upper levels of understanding.
I guess I would say that alternative education can be valuable for kids who are being failed by traditional approaches (like very smart young kids who are far ahead of their classmates and bored to tears every day) but that there are real disadvantages in assuming that just because a kid is bright and motivated that they'll *know* what skills they should be directing that energy towards. It doesn't sound like you're at the point where traditional schooling is really failing your daughter so I'd be hesitant to move her somewhere that you already know is deficient in concrete skills like math and reading.
posted by iminurmefi at 6:23 PM on October 24, 2011
If I were to generalize I'd say that something like Montessori is more valuable for young kids--like age 10 and under--when the emphasis is more on learning social skills and developing attitudes towards learning and school itself. Once you start talking about older kids, in the upper grades of elementary school through high school, alternative education can definitely start to be more of a hindrance as they are losing out on "traditional" academic skills (how to write an essay, how to do long division) that they need to know to survive and thrive in college. Also, so much will depend on the individual child; I really did well as a young kid in Montessori because I was very motivated and easily learned new skills with relatively little guidance, while my brothers struggled with undiagnosed learning disabilities. In fact, my brothers didn't properly learn to read until 8th grade, and I think a big part of that was missing out on the traditional approach where a teacher might have noticed their problems and intervened.
As soon as you start talking about middle school or high school I think alternative schooling methods start to have sharp disadvantages even for relatively bright students. My best friend, who was very smart and did very well in math classes through middle school, felt like she really missed the boat on key skills by enrolling in the 'alternative' math curriculum that focused on things like 'intuitive understanding' and word problems to the exclusion of memorization of the rules of geometry and pre-algebra. She believes (and I concur) that had she remained in traditional math courses she probably would have ended up in a field like computer science in college; the fact that she didn't have the foundation to really take any non-remedial math classes effectively ruled out a lot of fields which in turn shaped the career opportunities she has today. She has a great life and a good job but if she could go back, she would have chosen differently as she feels the story she was told about how much better it was to avoid rote learning and memorization really discounted the fact that sometimes you need to learn the basics through brute force in order to have any hope of moving on to the upper levels of understanding.
I guess I would say that alternative education can be valuable for kids who are being failed by traditional approaches (like very smart young kids who are far ahead of their classmates and bored to tears every day) but that there are real disadvantages in assuming that just because a kid is bright and motivated that they'll *know* what skills they should be directing that energy towards. It doesn't sound like you're at the point where traditional schooling is really failing your daughter so I'd be hesitant to move her somewhere that you already know is deficient in concrete skills like math and reading.
posted by iminurmefi at 6:23 PM on October 24, 2011
I went to a school for K-8 that was like this in many respects (grades 1-2 and 3-4 together, no letter grades period, pretty much no tests, narrative evaluations, focus on social emotional learning, constructivist learning activities, lots of small group activities, everyone learns at their own pace, etc...). It was fabulous and I loved it, but there were certainly some kinks and it was clear that the system just plain didn't work for some kids. Some kids simply need more structure and get lost when they have too many options. Some kids can only focus in a silent room while sitting at desks in neat little rows. Certainly teachers are going to point students in the right directions, but I found that this kind of learning works best with kids who are generally pretty self-motivated and exceptionally curious. It is by no means a failure of any kind if that's not your kid, but I'd think about whether she's a "open your textbook to page 37" or a "what do you want to research today?" kind of person.
You say she's struggling with the amount of homework, which hits the nail on the head for me. Personally, I think it's absurd for a 2nd grader to have any kind of substantial homework, let alone enough to be struggling with. My personal beliefs aside, the real point is that the kind of school I went to is great for the kinds of kids who would say "school is getting in the way of my education." Backing off the homework and endless worksheets means more time to read, play, and learn outside of school. If she's the kind of kid who can take advantage of the opportunity (and you're the kind of parent who can keep her going), then that's great. Ultimately, the kind of learning a 2nd grader needs is primarily skills-based, not content oriented. I, for one, would far far rather see a 2nd grader discuss The Phantom Toolbooth than recite multiplication tables, but that trade-off is your decision to make.
The focus on social-emotional learning and conflict resolution were and are very important to me, but could easily feel like new-agey BS to others.
As far as the level/pacing thing goes, that's very much something I experienced. My school was pretty lax on forcing material on students and pretty keen on the whole "learn at your own pace" concept. Everyone was quite smart, but this approach led to much more unevenness in abilities. Some 2nd graders were whizzes at fractions, but could barely read, while others tore through books and had trouble with arithmetic. Certainly, this was nerve-racking for many parents, and the school did wind up standardizing the curriculum a little more, but ultimately I'm pleased to say that every single student graduated 8th grade able to both read and add proficiently. In the end, this stuff tends to work out.
One thing my school did very well was mixing up groups of students of varying ability and ages. In grades 1-2, we honestly had the entire continuum of reading groups from See-Spot-Run to The Phantom Tollbooth. It sounds like this school does something similar with their "pods." If she's at a higher reading level, maybe she can read more challenging books with one group, while another group reads simpler books and focuses more on phonics (or however kids learn to read nowadays). I'd find out more about how this works at this school, which might address some of your concerns.
Talk to current parents and students to be sure, but it might well be informative to try to talk to one or more students+parents who have graduated about their transition to more traditional high schools. Did they feel prepared? How did their "alternative" education help and hinder them in a more traditional high school setting?
Ultimately, one thing that a more flexible school gives you is the opportunity to supplement its faults with learning activities of your own design. If you're ticked off that your kid still hasn't learned the times tables, there's nothing stopping you from handling that activity outside of school.* Maybe she uses some time after school to take an extracurricular art class instead of doing a set of math worksheets.
I'll end with a bit that one of my old teachers liked to use when faced with discussions of educational philosophy. Many schools will force students to memorize a list of US states and their capitals. They'll dutifully test students on that list and then probably even make them fill in the states on a blank map. On the other hand, a student can easily graduate from School X not knowing where the heck Topeka is (it's in Kansas, for the record, though I still couldn't place it on a map), but with both the intellectual curiosity to care and want to learn about the world around him, and the knowledge skills to find that information near instantly. As an adult, I've got seven devices in front of me that can instantly show me a map of Kansas (OK, I'm a mobile app developer at the moment, so my desk is full of tablets and phones, but still), but there's no substitute for curiosity and passion.
* There's also nothing stopping an incredibly brilliant and kind-hearted teacher from telling a 5th grader that he can have root access to the school webserver if he can recite the 7s and 8s from memory, but that's perhaps an extraordinary case.
posted by zachlipton at 6:43 PM on October 24, 2011 [1 favorite]
You say she's struggling with the amount of homework, which hits the nail on the head for me. Personally, I think it's absurd for a 2nd grader to have any kind of substantial homework, let alone enough to be struggling with. My personal beliefs aside, the real point is that the kind of school I went to is great for the kinds of kids who would say "school is getting in the way of my education." Backing off the homework and endless worksheets means more time to read, play, and learn outside of school. If she's the kind of kid who can take advantage of the opportunity (and you're the kind of parent who can keep her going), then that's great. Ultimately, the kind of learning a 2nd grader needs is primarily skills-based, not content oriented. I, for one, would far far rather see a 2nd grader discuss The Phantom Toolbooth than recite multiplication tables, but that trade-off is your decision to make.
The focus on social-emotional learning and conflict resolution were and are very important to me, but could easily feel like new-agey BS to others.
As far as the level/pacing thing goes, that's very much something I experienced. My school was pretty lax on forcing material on students and pretty keen on the whole "learn at your own pace" concept. Everyone was quite smart, but this approach led to much more unevenness in abilities. Some 2nd graders were whizzes at fractions, but could barely read, while others tore through books and had trouble with arithmetic. Certainly, this was nerve-racking for many parents, and the school did wind up standardizing the curriculum a little more, but ultimately I'm pleased to say that every single student graduated 8th grade able to both read and add proficiently. In the end, this stuff tends to work out.
One thing my school did very well was mixing up groups of students of varying ability and ages. In grades 1-2, we honestly had the entire continuum of reading groups from See-Spot-Run to The Phantom Tollbooth. It sounds like this school does something similar with their "pods." If she's at a higher reading level, maybe she can read more challenging books with one group, while another group reads simpler books and focuses more on phonics (or however kids learn to read nowadays). I'd find out more about how this works at this school, which might address some of your concerns.
Talk to current parents and students to be sure, but it might well be informative to try to talk to one or more students+parents who have graduated about their transition to more traditional high schools. Did they feel prepared? How did their "alternative" education help and hinder them in a more traditional high school setting?
Ultimately, one thing that a more flexible school gives you is the opportunity to supplement its faults with learning activities of your own design. If you're ticked off that your kid still hasn't learned the times tables, there's nothing stopping you from handling that activity outside of school.* Maybe she uses some time after school to take an extracurricular art class instead of doing a set of math worksheets.
I'll end with a bit that one of my old teachers liked to use when faced with discussions of educational philosophy. Many schools will force students to memorize a list of US states and their capitals. They'll dutifully test students on that list and then probably even make them fill in the states on a blank map. On the other hand, a student can easily graduate from School X not knowing where the heck Topeka is (it's in Kansas, for the record, though I still couldn't place it on a map), but with both the intellectual curiosity to care and want to learn about the world around him, and the knowledge skills to find that information near instantly. As an adult, I've got seven devices in front of me that can instantly show me a map of Kansas (OK, I'm a mobile app developer at the moment, so my desk is full of tablets and phones, but still), but there's no substitute for curiosity and passion.
* There's also nothing stopping an incredibly brilliant and kind-hearted teacher from telling a 5th grader that he can have root access to the school webserver if he can recite the 7s and 8s from memory, but that's perhaps an extraordinary case.
posted by zachlipton at 6:43 PM on October 24, 2011 [1 favorite]
A few Montessori notes (I work at a Montessori school):
Coming in at 2nd grade to a Montessori school could be a challenge. Kids are in classes on a 3 year cycle, so starting a Montessori school for the first time in 2nd grade means joining classmates who have been together for more than a school year (perhaps more than that, if they were in a primary class together). It also means picking up Montessori habits that other classmates have instinctually - getting out a rug to work, working very independently, using a lot of hands on materials. It's not impossible, certainly, but there might be some bumps.
Also, not all Montessori schools are created equal. The name "Montessori" is not copywrited, so any school can use it. The American Montessori Society is a good source for reputable schools that follow Maria Montessori's teachings. The AMS certifies teachers, schools, and training programs.
Personally, I went to a very small K-12 private school that wasn't any "alternative" style. I spent 9 years there, through my high school graduation. I was shy and quiet, an academic bookworm. Small class sizes and the flexibility of the administration to create classes for a very small group of people was great. Less great was the small size in general - the social life in high school ran to parties and drinking which was not me, but there wasn't enough people like me to form our own clique. Also, by high school, I was able to get away with some stuff because teachers had known for years at that point, and I was a "good girl". I know you have a 2nd grade girl, but these are thoughts for the future.
I'd be curious to see the me that might have resulted from Montessori Pre-K through 3rd, my private school through 8th, and a public high school.
posted by booksherpa at 7:18 PM on October 24, 2011
Coming in at 2nd grade to a Montessori school could be a challenge. Kids are in classes on a 3 year cycle, so starting a Montessori school for the first time in 2nd grade means joining classmates who have been together for more than a school year (perhaps more than that, if they were in a primary class together). It also means picking up Montessori habits that other classmates have instinctually - getting out a rug to work, working very independently, using a lot of hands on materials. It's not impossible, certainly, but there might be some bumps.
Also, not all Montessori schools are created equal. The name "Montessori" is not copywrited, so any school can use it. The American Montessori Society is a good source for reputable schools that follow Maria Montessori's teachings. The AMS certifies teachers, schools, and training programs.
Personally, I went to a very small K-12 private school that wasn't any "alternative" style. I spent 9 years there, through my high school graduation. I was shy and quiet, an academic bookworm. Small class sizes and the flexibility of the administration to create classes for a very small group of people was great. Less great was the small size in general - the social life in high school ran to parties and drinking which was not me, but there wasn't enough people like me to form our own clique. Also, by high school, I was able to get away with some stuff because teachers had known for years at that point, and I was a "good girl". I know you have a 2nd grade girl, but these are thoughts for the future.
I'd be curious to see the me that might have resulted from Montessori Pre-K through 3rd, my private school through 8th, and a public high school.
posted by booksherpa at 7:18 PM on October 24, 2011
I went to a grade school like the one you are considering. It was awesome. That "whole child" thing really worked for me and I entered this thread prepared to go on and on about it, but zachlipton really summed up the whole experience for me. I consider that education to be critical not only to my formation as a person but as a student; those years and the ability I developed to think both creatively and critically stood me in very good stead all through university. It was a very nurturing place and I developed into a confident, articulate kids with buckets of self esteem and interests.
I was given ample scope and support to develop my well-above-grade-average reading, for what it's worth. My mother finally pulled me out of that school for 7th grade when my reading outstripped my educators' and moved me to a more rigorous institution. The transition was hard. I moved myself to an in between option for high school, and honestly I credit my grade school with my ability to pull that off. I investigated schools, called around, put in applications, and got the ideal private school to interview and take me. In New York City. In Manhattan. In August.
And every day I walked into School C, I thanked School A. It's the experience I would want for my kids.
posted by DarlingBri at 7:21 PM on October 24, 2011 [2 favorites]
I was given ample scope and support to develop my well-above-grade-average reading, for what it's worth. My mother finally pulled me out of that school for 7th grade when my reading outstripped my educators' and moved me to a more rigorous institution. The transition was hard. I moved myself to an in between option for high school, and honestly I credit my grade school with my ability to pull that off. I investigated schools, called around, put in applications, and got the ideal private school to interview and take me. In New York City. In Manhattan. In August.
And every day I walked into School C, I thanked School A. It's the experience I would want for my kids.
posted by DarlingBri at 7:21 PM on October 24, 2011 [2 favorites]
I was in Montessori from Kindergarten to 1st grade. I learned a ton of math and geography that I was later able to do a lot with in a mainstream private school, and I remember that I really liked the different types of kinesthetic tasks we learned to do. My favorite memory from my kindergarten year was that I (a little blonde girl) got to dress up as Michael Dukakis in our mock election, and wore furry caterpillar pipe-cleaner eyebrows and a construction paper top hat(?!).
And I also remember that my teachers did NOTHING about a huge older kid in my class who was bullying me, and instead told me to talk it out with him. This was a kid who was half a foot taller and like 30-40 lbs. heavier than me, and he would run at me and knock me over, or would just sit on me. I'm a kid therapist now that I'm a grown-up, and I'm all for teaching kids how to be assertive for themselves, but these teachers didn't help me learn to use my words or anything, they just ignored that I was being physically harmed by another child. I also was in a class with a kid who stuck push-pins into other kids (including me), although my mom says he got kicked out of the school. Ultimately, the lack of supervision/intervention by the teachers was why my mom switched me to a different school, where I ended up staying for the rest of elementary school and did extremely well with the structured and encouraging environment.
posted by so_gracefully at 8:02 PM on October 24, 2011
And I also remember that my teachers did NOTHING about a huge older kid in my class who was bullying me, and instead told me to talk it out with him. This was a kid who was half a foot taller and like 30-40 lbs. heavier than me, and he would run at me and knock me over, or would just sit on me. I'm a kid therapist now that I'm a grown-up, and I'm all for teaching kids how to be assertive for themselves, but these teachers didn't help me learn to use my words or anything, they just ignored that I was being physically harmed by another child. I also was in a class with a kid who stuck push-pins into other kids (including me), although my mom says he got kicked out of the school. Ultimately, the lack of supervision/intervention by the teachers was why my mom switched me to a different school, where I ended up staying for the rest of elementary school and did extremely well with the structured and encouraging environment.
posted by so_gracefully at 8:02 PM on October 24, 2011
Ya' know, while differences in educational philosophy matter at some level (that is, different schools look, feel, and operate, in fact, differently), the much larger influence seems to come from the sorts of economic and cultural capital that a kid's parents and family bring to the mix. That is, the more $$$ you have, the less impact that choice of a particular school will likely have on your child in the long run (sadly, the converse is also true: for kids from more under-resourced backgrounds, different school environments make a bigger difference, but the parents of those kids often have fewer options to choose from). I guess I'm getting at a variation on what's been pointed out above: just as it depends a lot on your particular child and her temperament, the social class of your particular family and the sorts of resources available to your child outside of school will also influence how/how much she benefits from a particular sort of school environment.
posted by 5Q7 at 8:56 PM on October 24, 2011
posted by 5Q7 at 8:56 PM on October 24, 2011
More anecdata: one of our daughters went to Summerhill, then went on to Ph.D. at Cambridge; another daughter went to Waldorf for some years, then homeschool, and now is in medical school. Not that it proves much, but just to say that academic achievement is possible without being mainstreamed or force-fed.
posted by anadem at 9:03 PM on October 24, 2011
posted by anadem at 9:03 PM on October 24, 2011
Response by poster: Thanks all for the responses! I know you don't know my kid and you are sharing your own experiences--it's really very helpful. Just to be clear, it isn't a Waldorf or a Montessori school but the school shares some things in common with these and also they're not the average neighborhood public school. The school sounds a lot like the democratic hippie school that thehmsbeagle describes. You pegged it.
zachlipton asked is she more of a "turn to page 37" kid or a "what are we going to research today?" kid. At home, she's independent. She wants to read her own books (rather than the books she is sent home to read from school) and creates her own projects, like writing her own "books". Some of these ideas do come from school so I can see she is definitely interested in what she is learning in class. However, I want her to have the time to do her own thing and follow her interests, and I'm seeing that her homework is busywork and I have to nag her to do it which feels terrible. I agree that it's absurd to have so much homework in second grade. Sometimes she zips through it and sometimes it just drags on all week.
posted by biscuits at 10:34 PM on October 24, 2011
zachlipton asked is she more of a "turn to page 37" kid or a "what are we going to research today?" kid. At home, she's independent. She wants to read her own books (rather than the books she is sent home to read from school) and creates her own projects, like writing her own "books". Some of these ideas do come from school so I can see she is definitely interested in what she is learning in class. However, I want her to have the time to do her own thing and follow her interests, and I'm seeing that her homework is busywork and I have to nag her to do it which feels terrible. I agree that it's absurd to have so much homework in second grade. Sometimes she zips through it and sometimes it just drags on all week.
posted by biscuits at 10:34 PM on October 24, 2011
Another homeschooled kid - all the way from 1st grade to 12th grade. It worked well, with a number of caveats. College wasn't difficult, and I submit it's gotten easier as colleges have formalized their processes and gotten used to seeing portfolios instead of transcripts.
Looking back at it, I'd say I'm a independent thinker more than anything. Smart, tested well, and went to college, stayed on the Dean's list. Meet me in person, and you wouldn't be able to tell anything different about me - unless I wanted you to see the differences.
The stereotypes of homeschoolers not being socialized are somewhat true, FWIW - too many parents are a bit too controlling when it comes to social opportunities. This goes double for religious parents.
In all, I'd say explore the path that works for you. So long as they grow up able to do math, socialize with their peers, and use good grammar, the sky's the limit.
posted by chrisinseoul at 5:46 AM on October 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
Looking back at it, I'd say I'm a independent thinker more than anything. Smart, tested well, and went to college, stayed on the Dean's list. Meet me in person, and you wouldn't be able to tell anything different about me - unless I wanted you to see the differences.
The stereotypes of homeschoolers not being socialized are somewhat true, FWIW - too many parents are a bit too controlling when it comes to social opportunities. This goes double for religious parents.
In all, I'd say explore the path that works for you. So long as they grow up able to do math, socialize with their peers, and use good grammar, the sky's the limit.
posted by chrisinseoul at 5:46 AM on October 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
Nth-ing Varlkyryn's comments.
I volunteered at a summerhill-type school for a while (ages and ages ago), with kids who did really well - they finished 'high school' without many of the 'traditional' school experiences, but having done amazing things that were more than enough to get them into college and moving toward the careers they wanted. They were a great group of kids, too, super-involved in the community and enthused about all sorts of things.
The difference between them and kids who end up 'drifting' a lot, I think, was that the parents (in most cases) and the school staff (in all cases) were not ideologically opposed to 'structure' per se - they strongly encouraged kids to pursue big projects, helped them structure those projects, and urged them to do complete them to high standards. The philosophy was more Grace Llewellyn than Sandra Dodd.
So I'd say look for someplace that embodies your philosophy but also is set up to help kids set goals and achieve big things, rather than just setting them up with no structure and an assumption that they will achieve without adult help of any kind. That's just overwhelming to a lot of kids, and seems to be the domain of parents who are very interested in their own ideologies rather than giving their kids a chance to acheive their own goals.
posted by Wylla at 6:09 AM on October 25, 2011
I volunteered at a summerhill-type school for a while (ages and ages ago), with kids who did really well - they finished 'high school' without many of the 'traditional' school experiences, but having done amazing things that were more than enough to get them into college and moving toward the careers they wanted. They were a great group of kids, too, super-involved in the community and enthused about all sorts of things.
The difference between them and kids who end up 'drifting' a lot, I think, was that the parents (in most cases) and the school staff (in all cases) were not ideologically opposed to 'structure' per se - they strongly encouraged kids to pursue big projects, helped them structure those projects, and urged them to do complete them to high standards. The philosophy was more Grace Llewellyn than Sandra Dodd.
So I'd say look for someplace that embodies your philosophy but also is set up to help kids set goals and achieve big things, rather than just setting them up with no structure and an assumption that they will achieve without adult help of any kind. That's just overwhelming to a lot of kids, and seems to be the domain of parents who are very interested in their own ideologies rather than giving their kids a chance to acheive their own goals.
posted by Wylla at 6:09 AM on October 25, 2011
My husband, now a computer engineer, went to a Vrije school in Holland in the 80s. This is what he has to say, not having read the other responses:
"- people involved in the alternative education space over-rate their own approach and programs and underestimate the value of more traditional approaches
- being alternative to some extent is fine, but don't push it too far and don't be too fascist about it and try to keep it grounded in the REAL WORLD -- having teenage boys spend 36 hours on SPINNING WOOL IS RIDICULOUS!
- don't say your all sensitive to the students emotions, responsibilities and critical thinking while at the same time being dogmatic about your own education system
In summary: I think I would actually have done better in a traditional school myself. I was envious that students there could chose to be in a rock band for music classes. (Instead of playing a god damn wooden recorder.)"
posted by Dragonness at 9:24 AM on October 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
"- people involved in the alternative education space over-rate their own approach and programs and underestimate the value of more traditional approaches
- being alternative to some extent is fine, but don't push it too far and don't be too fascist about it and try to keep it grounded in the REAL WORLD -- having teenage boys spend 36 hours on SPINNING WOOL IS RIDICULOUS!
- don't say your all sensitive to the students emotions, responsibilities and critical thinking while at the same time being dogmatic about your own education system
In summary: I think I would actually have done better in a traditional school myself. I was envious that students there could chose to be in a rock band for music classes. (Instead of playing a god damn wooden recorder.)"
posted by Dragonness at 9:24 AM on October 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
Just chiming in to say that Waldorf (aka Rudolph Steiner) schools are really very different from Montessori or those other schools that have more permissive environments. I went to a Waldorf school from K-8 and my school, anyway, was really quite regimented. In an odd way, granted, but there was a very disciplined environment. It was an old-fashioned environment (we made our own textbooks and desks, for example, and did a LOT of memorization).
I think I liked kindergarten (I was shy and I'm not sure I would have really liked any school at that point) and now think it's just lovely. Later I liked it less and less, but I still am very glad I went there. I think my little sister liked it pretty much throughout.
Really briefly, pros:
- kindergarten - beautiful aesthetically (I think the whole school is beautiful; this definitely shaped my aesthetics later in life); small classes, extremely nurturing, didn't learn much of anything (let us just be kids)
- the rest: small classes, 1 main class teacher all 8 years so she really knew us, 2 foreign languages from grade 1 on and I think that may be why I excelled in languages and eventually learned to speak 5, encouraged creativity, encouraged out-of-the-box thinking, my main class teacher was a strong writer and I excelled in writing/English in all subsequent classes. We put on at least 2 plays a year and everyone had a role. Freedom to figure out who you are; I had a very strong sense of my own identity from early on. Very little stress at all. Not stuffy at all. It was a bit too crunchy for my taste, but that was fine at the time.
Cons:
- I was stressed about the lack of testing (probably because I knew kids at public schools were tested) and about the fact that we did not learn to read until 3rd grade (no harm though - I am now a lawyer who graduated with good grades from a top tier law school and am an avid reader. Reading was utterly precious to me as soon as I was finally taught how.)
- small classes - the social environment though very warm could be claustrophobic. But when I joined a huge high school I didn't like that either
- I wasn't particularly challenged. In math and science I was one of the better students in my class, but was behind my peers when I got to high school and I never caught up. My main class teacher was weak in math and science. Students before and after me with main class teachers who were strong in math and science excelled later in life in those subjects. Some students in my class got tutoring so that they could compete in math and science when they left waldorf.
- Christian-focused. Mine was, anyway. This is why my kid won't attend a Waldorf school, more than almost anything else. Although I will say that we learned a lot about many different religions and cultures and I think that's a big reason why I eventually lived overseas for years and work in international law now.
- Some weird classes - I'm not sure what they really accomplish (eurythmy being the prime example. I hated eurythmy).
One thing, though, I think Waldorf is best if you can commit to being there through 8th grade. Students who left part way through seemed really behind when they entered public school (or another private school).
Ok, it's hard to be brief about Waldorf. I felt utterly sheltered and nurtured, and I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing in childhood. But I was also ambitious and self-motivated, and so I excelled academically when some of my peers didn't. I have no idea if they would have done better in a different school system.
We called ourselves Waldorks. It fit.
posted by n'muakolo at 9:49 AM on October 25, 2011
I think I liked kindergarten (I was shy and I'm not sure I would have really liked any school at that point) and now think it's just lovely. Later I liked it less and less, but I still am very glad I went there. I think my little sister liked it pretty much throughout.
Really briefly, pros:
- kindergarten - beautiful aesthetically (I think the whole school is beautiful; this definitely shaped my aesthetics later in life); small classes, extremely nurturing, didn't learn much of anything (let us just be kids)
- the rest: small classes, 1 main class teacher all 8 years so she really knew us, 2 foreign languages from grade 1 on and I think that may be why I excelled in languages and eventually learned to speak 5, encouraged creativity, encouraged out-of-the-box thinking, my main class teacher was a strong writer and I excelled in writing/English in all subsequent classes. We put on at least 2 plays a year and everyone had a role. Freedom to figure out who you are; I had a very strong sense of my own identity from early on. Very little stress at all. Not stuffy at all. It was a bit too crunchy for my taste, but that was fine at the time.
Cons:
- I was stressed about the lack of testing (probably because I knew kids at public schools were tested) and about the fact that we did not learn to read until 3rd grade (no harm though - I am now a lawyer who graduated with good grades from a top tier law school and am an avid reader. Reading was utterly precious to me as soon as I was finally taught how.)
- small classes - the social environment though very warm could be claustrophobic. But when I joined a huge high school I didn't like that either
- I wasn't particularly challenged. In math and science I was one of the better students in my class, but was behind my peers when I got to high school and I never caught up. My main class teacher was weak in math and science. Students before and after me with main class teachers who were strong in math and science excelled later in life in those subjects. Some students in my class got tutoring so that they could compete in math and science when they left waldorf.
- Christian-focused. Mine was, anyway. This is why my kid won't attend a Waldorf school, more than almost anything else. Although I will say that we learned a lot about many different religions and cultures and I think that's a big reason why I eventually lived overseas for years and work in international law now.
- Some weird classes - I'm not sure what they really accomplish (eurythmy being the prime example. I hated eurythmy).
One thing, though, I think Waldorf is best if you can commit to being there through 8th grade. Students who left part way through seemed really behind when they entered public school (or another private school).
Ok, it's hard to be brief about Waldorf. I felt utterly sheltered and nurtured, and I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing in childhood. But I was also ambitious and self-motivated, and so I excelled academically when some of my peers didn't. I have no idea if they would have done better in a different school system.
We called ourselves Waldorks. It fit.
posted by n'muakolo at 9:49 AM on October 25, 2011
As an aside, this article from Sunday's New York Times might be interesting reading in light of your concerns about homework and academic rigor in which Dalton and Horace Mann and other uber-fancy NYC schools are making (perhaps trivial) changes in an effort to avoid working their students to death, citing research on the negative effects of overwork and sleep deprivation. All that goes doubly so for a 2nd grader with an overwhelming amount of homework.
Some of Alfie Kohn's writings might also be interesting in this regard, such as his essay Rethinking Homework (he's also got a book on the same), his list of "Ten Obvious Truths" that we Shouldn't be Ignoring, and his What to Look for in a Classroom.
posted by zachlipton at 10:48 AM on October 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
Some of Alfie Kohn's writings might also be interesting in this regard, such as his essay Rethinking Homework (he's also got a book on the same), his list of "Ten Obvious Truths" that we Shouldn't be Ignoring, and his What to Look for in a Classroom.
posted by zachlipton at 10:48 AM on October 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
I went to a few different alternative schools, though none were as alternative, it sounds like, as the one you're describing or ones that others in this thread attended.
One school I went to was a public school that was supposedly Montessori, but wasn't exactly. It grouped grades 1 - 3, 4 - 6, and used some of the methods, but because it was a public school, we still had to do testing and other "grade level" type benchmarks. I found that it wasn't actually much more challenging than regular public school, and I would often finish my assignments early and just spend the time writing my "novel" (when I was about 10). In retrospect - maybe this was okay, since I was keeping up with everything else, and I certainly improved and practiced my writing.
I found that parts of the structure exacerbated problems that happen at regular public schools. For example, the clustered grades meant that, as others mentioned, many of the students had had classes together for years. In my experience, this made them clique-ish to an extreme and I and others experienced some awful verbal bullying around grades 5 and 6. (I know this is when a lot of bullying happens - I don't think that there is a magical school system where it doesn't happen - just pointing out how the slightly alternative structure contributed to the problem in this case).
Also, because it was a smaller school and went up to 8th grade, and because of how it was structured, I got to a point where I had covered all of the math they had. I am very good at grasping math concepts, and had the same math textbook for grades 5 - 7, which I found maddening. Literally the only new math concept I learned in grade 7 was negative numbers; everything else was a precise rehash of what I'd learned previously. Because of the structure of the school, they wouldn't let me take "8th grade math", in part because, then what would I take in 8th grade.
For preschool I went to a much more Montessori-ish school and absolutely loved it.
posted by fireflies at 11:17 AM on October 25, 2011
One school I went to was a public school that was supposedly Montessori, but wasn't exactly. It grouped grades 1 - 3, 4 - 6, and used some of the methods, but because it was a public school, we still had to do testing and other "grade level" type benchmarks. I found that it wasn't actually much more challenging than regular public school, and I would often finish my assignments early and just spend the time writing my "novel" (when I was about 10). In retrospect - maybe this was okay, since I was keeping up with everything else, and I certainly improved and practiced my writing.
I found that parts of the structure exacerbated problems that happen at regular public schools. For example, the clustered grades meant that, as others mentioned, many of the students had had classes together for years. In my experience, this made them clique-ish to an extreme and I and others experienced some awful verbal bullying around grades 5 and 6. (I know this is when a lot of bullying happens - I don't think that there is a magical school system where it doesn't happen - just pointing out how the slightly alternative structure contributed to the problem in this case).
Also, because it was a smaller school and went up to 8th grade, and because of how it was structured, I got to a point where I had covered all of the math they had. I am very good at grasping math concepts, and had the same math textbook for grades 5 - 7, which I found maddening. Literally the only new math concept I learned in grade 7 was negative numbers; everything else was a precise rehash of what I'd learned previously. Because of the structure of the school, they wouldn't let me take "8th grade math", in part because, then what would I take in 8th grade.
For preschool I went to a much more Montessori-ish school and absolutely loved it.
posted by fireflies at 11:17 AM on October 25, 2011
Repeating wilful, I too demanded to be sent to a more traditional school, because I was unchallenged academically by a curriculum of applied arts. My arts-y academic requests were often taken up; we studied the French Revolution at 12 at my suggestion, but there weren't any teachers enthusiastic about leading a class in Physics.
However, it was the wrong decision. I caught up very quickly with my mainstream school (I was ahead in literacy and numeracy, but behind in hard science), and found I had the same problem of being underchallenged, with far less social tolerance or support. I also had far fewer opportunities to discover practices such as theatre and Alexander Technique, which could have been lifelines if I had been able to appreciate them earlier.
I found it rather sweet to be suddenly treated like a child (I was unwilling and emotionally unable to grow up, so the reprieve was welcome), but ridiculous to be expected to engage in things like team sports. These I flatly refused to do, after a couple of more enthusiastic months of giving them a go — I think I got away with this by a combination of getting in the way of the rest of the team, while maintaining marks of (from some teachers) above 100% in my academic classes (I quickly used my creative thinking abilities to investigate how marking schemes worked.)
I did pass national exams which I wouldn't have at my alternative school, but I also had a nervous breakdown, and the aftermath of that prevented me from pursuing education (or a lot of life) at a higher level.
...I could write so much more, but it would be about me. Please select according to the needs and personality of your child.
posted by westerly at 2:20 PM on October 25, 2011
However, it was the wrong decision. I caught up very quickly with my mainstream school (I was ahead in literacy and numeracy, but behind in hard science), and found I had the same problem of being underchallenged, with far less social tolerance or support. I also had far fewer opportunities to discover practices such as theatre and Alexander Technique, which could have been lifelines if I had been able to appreciate them earlier.
I found it rather sweet to be suddenly treated like a child (I was unwilling and emotionally unable to grow up, so the reprieve was welcome), but ridiculous to be expected to engage in things like team sports. These I flatly refused to do, after a couple of more enthusiastic months of giving them a go — I think I got away with this by a combination of getting in the way of the rest of the team, while maintaining marks of (from some teachers) above 100% in my academic classes (I quickly used my creative thinking abilities to investigate how marking schemes worked.)
I did pass national exams which I wouldn't have at my alternative school, but I also had a nervous breakdown, and the aftermath of that prevented me from pursuing education (or a lot of life) at a higher level.
...I could write so much more, but it would be about me. Please select according to the needs and personality of your child.
posted by westerly at 2:20 PM on October 25, 2011
I don't mean to threadhover but my experience was so unlike others here that I have just realised that the only alternative or progressive school that matters is the one you are looking at. The kid in my 5th and 6th grade class who excelled at math left us every day to go upstairs and take math with the high school kids. I was encouraged to do my little one page book reports working from the 9 - 12 grade reading lists. Meanwhile, I got remedial tutoring in maths with a maths teacher who tried 27 methods - tables, paper, chips, calculators - to help me grasp the concept of multiplication.
FWIW, I went to a Montessori pre-school, and Calhoun from K - 6. The school I couldn't cope with was a Horace Mann neighbour, and the school that let me in in august was a Dalton peer. I had an excellent education and I know I was incredibly privileged but my strongest and most positive educational memories are still from grade school.
posted by DarlingBri at 2:26 PM on October 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
FWIW, I went to a Montessori pre-school, and Calhoun from K - 6. The school I couldn't cope with was a Horace Mann neighbour, and the school that let me in in august was a Dalton peer. I had an excellent education and I know I was incredibly privileged but my strongest and most positive educational memories are still from grade school.
posted by DarlingBri at 2:26 PM on October 25, 2011 [1 favorite]
From a (very) different perspective, and possibly not totally pertaining to your question, I attended an International Baccalaureate school, which taught me the correct spelling of Baccalaureate, and not a whole lot else.
My experience was that the educational philosophy was a lot of fun for adults and school board members to talk about, needlessly difficult for teachers to implement (and with zero "infrastructure" in terms of textbooks, online resources, and test prep guides for American/English-speaking audiences to support them), and not particularly advantageous to the students.
It wasn't bad, but I was never entirely convinced that it was better than a "normal" American public school (however, you were at a serious disadvantage if you did end up transferring to one of those "normal" schools, or attended a college that didn't "get" the IB mindset).
I support education reform, but most of the "alternative" systems I've witnessed seem to be different for the sole sake of being different, without much scientific backing, or consideration for the needs of students to interact with others outside of that system. IB is easily the most "traditional" of the alternative systems, but its disparity from the rest of the American educational system put it at a very serious disadvantage, and my school couldn't really implement it successfully, even with a generous amount of funding and support. I can't possibly imagine what a radically different educational system would have been like.
posted by schmod at 8:11 AM on October 26, 2011
My experience was that the educational philosophy was a lot of fun for adults and school board members to talk about, needlessly difficult for teachers to implement (and with zero "infrastructure" in terms of textbooks, online resources, and test prep guides for American/English-speaking audiences to support them), and not particularly advantageous to the students.
It wasn't bad, but I was never entirely convinced that it was better than a "normal" American public school (however, you were at a serious disadvantage if you did end up transferring to one of those "normal" schools, or attended a college that didn't "get" the IB mindset).
I support education reform, but most of the "alternative" systems I've witnessed seem to be different for the sole sake of being different, without much scientific backing, or consideration for the needs of students to interact with others outside of that system. IB is easily the most "traditional" of the alternative systems, but its disparity from the rest of the American educational system put it at a very serious disadvantage, and my school couldn't really implement it successfully, even with a generous amount of funding and support. I can't possibly imagine what a radically different educational system would have been like.
posted by schmod at 8:11 AM on October 26, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
The "open" plans were quietly closed after a few years, but the kids that came out of those schools at that time were severely hampered both socially and educationally when they arrived at middle and high school and had to interact with students and teachers used to a "normal" style. You could draw a real bright line between them.
Basically ... if you're the kind of kid that will drift ... you will drift.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 4:39 PM on October 24, 2011