I think good schools can make a huge difference to any kid, and I am shocked to hear several opinions to the contrary from a group of highly-educated professionals. How can anyone who has seen the difference between a good and a bad school setting think that it makes no difference? In my view, moreover, good schools matter even *more* to the kids at the margins (super-smart/learning-disabled), because the best schools are the same ones that have resources to devote to those kids' special needs, and that have teachers who are skilled at differentiating instruction across whatever classroom spectrum they are presented with.
Even if you focus strictly on raw, objective educational outcomes (standardized test scores, college placement, etc.), there is a significant gap between strong and weak schools -- you may not be able to accurately weigh Andover vs. Exeter, but you can sure tell the difference between New Trier and the Chicago Public Schools. And the gap is even bigger if you take into account the "soft" aspects of quality of education -- is the learning process stimulating, inspiring, rich, deep, multi-layered, differentiated, etc. More talented, better trained teachers, smaller class sizes, better tracking of kids with appropriate peer groups, adequate concentrations of highly talented and special-needs kids, all contribute even more to those soft aspects than to hard outcomes.
I challenge anyone here to think back to his or her best, most stimulating, exciting, content-rich class ever, imagine substituting five classes like that for your five worst classes ever, and say that that would have no effect on your life today and the kind of person you are. How could you not want that for your kids?
I'm personally a public-school devotee, and agree with the folks who have said it's important to expose your kids to a spectrum of class, race, etc., that they aren't likely to see in a private school. But it's a far cry from that to saying that *whatever* they get exposed to in school is helpful.
Quote:
Originally posted by tmdiva
What I've heard (can't remember exactly where) is that smart kids with involved parents will do well in just about any school, and stupid kids with uninvolved parents will do poorly. The quality of the school makes a substantial difference only for those kids who are of more or less average intelligence/motivation, etc.
We've still got another year of preschool before hitting kindergarten, but we're already starting to think seriously about where Magnus will be going to school in the long term, and are stressing a little (at least I am) over the whole balance between keeping him sufficiently challenged and keeping him with kids of his own age group. In preschool, it hasn't been much of an issue because the curriculum is not academic and he gets most of his intellectual stimulation at home. However, I know this will change sooner rather than later, possibly as early as next year in kindergarten.
Anyone else read the article in the latest Time magazine about grade skipping? Anyone have personal experience with this issue, either for yourself or with your kids?
tm
|
