One of the reasons we chose private was because there was more focus on "soft skills." I was a pretty good student (scored 5s on all 7 of my AP tests, graduated in 3 years from a top 20 university, etc.) and am a reasonably smart professional (consistently get the highest marks on my year end reviews, etc.), but I really lack the "soft skills" to grow my career. I wanted a school that at least tried to pay attention to social development as I think soft skills are really underrated until you enter the business world. I have seen so many people (mostly men) get ahead because of their soft skills and not because of their actual competency. In the long run, skills like networking, communication, etc. are much more important for 99% of people then making a 5 on the AP Bio test.
I hear your response, but I think you are missing a key element. I think for most of the kids from affluent, well educated households, being able to get a 5 on the AP bio test is almost a given. Knowing that our kids will succeed academically, and we have resources at home or thorough hired help to smooth over difficulties, we want schools to fill in the gaps we can't provide ourselves.
It's interesting here what people are saying about soviet countries. I looked into enrolling my DC into a Russian pedagogy pre-k program, but they were doing worksheets at an early age, so I had assumed that they focused on early reading skills.
I'm a public school mom, and I honestly think it's because private schools know their students come in with a lot of advantages. They don't have to cover the basics because they know the families have already covered it--plenty of activities, enrichment, educational toys.
But I myself was educated in a poor Communist country where the strategy was similar--it was quite strict but they followed the European model where they didn't much care whether you learned to read until age 7+. So it's also a legit pedagogical philosophy.
In general, though, public schools take on the project of counteracting a lot of social ills and missed opportunities in the lives of their students. It's commendable, really.
I think the dichotomy is private K-12s vs other schools (private K-8s and public elementary and middle schools). The latter need to prepare their kids to apply to middle or high school; the former don't.
So the question is why do K-12s take it easy in elementary school and then ramp up in middle school, as opposed to taking a more even pace starting in elementary school. My guess is it's some combination of (a) their view of pedagogy, (b) the lower school can get away with it because the middle school isn't requiring much, (c) their view of what parents want, and (d) it keeps tuition-paying parents of middling students happy until those students can be replaced by proven-to-be-stronger kids in 6th and/or 9th (more likely on financial aid).
So here is the question ... by focusing on academics later than earlier, does it matter in the end? Do the kids achieve as well in HS? Perhaps the academic push is better when the kids are older , more mature, ready for the higher level thinking? I have no experience with privates so just asking. An example that comes to mind 5 year old kindergarteners in public must be reading, where as in other countries like Soviet union, Finland kids don't start school till 7. Learning to read comes quickly and is much easier as kid is developmentally ready.
@Anonymous I posted below you and this is true. I do think, however, that in these countries, early education is more about indoctrination into and participation in a society. We don't really have that kind of cohesive society here, but maybe the "social skills" education is more about fitting into your social class/milieu and is a sort of analog. The "lower classes" have to compete academically because they have no other option.
ETA I have a friend from the former soviet union and we once realized that we both learned in K that you couldn't go to the bathroom when you wanted. You had to go when it was bathroom time, or you'd pee in your pants. If there was ever a better indicator of what life in a totalitarian society was, I can't think of what that might be. The first thing you learned was that your personal needs didn't matter. Then, you learned to read.
Because private schools purport to be more about socialization and character development than skills based in the early years. It's the difference between your colleagues at work who always have their heads down working and the ones who go out for lunch and golf.
It really depends on a private. The larger ones, as the poster above noted, tend to concentrate on character building and social skills However, smaller ones, like Montessori schools, tend to be much stronger academically and do a nice job preparing kids for transition to a large school in Middle or High school. My DD was in small Montessori k-5 before switching and they did an amazing job academically. In some ways, she is a bit stronger student than her friends that have been in large k-12 since the beginning.
OR: Agree. I definitely wasn't including Montessori in that assessment, or parochial schools, both of which are quite academic. Was just addressing the typical TT, 2T/3T schools.
One of the reasons we chose private was because there was more focus on "soft skills." I was a pretty good student (scored 5s on all 7 of my AP tests, graduated in 3 years from a top 20 university, etc.) and am a reasonably smart professional (consistently get the highest marks on my year end reviews, etc.), but I really lack the "soft skills" to grow my career. I wanted a school that at least tried to pay attention to social development as I think soft skills are really underrated until you enter the business world. I have seen so many people (mostly men) get ahead because of their soft skills and not because of their actual competency. In the long run, skills like networking, communication, etc. are much more important for 99% of people then making a 5 on the AP Bio test.
It's interesting here what people are saying about soviet countries. I looked into enrolling my DC into a Russian pedagogy pre-k program, but they were doing worksheets at an early age, so I had assumed that they focused on early reading skills.
I'm a public school mom, and I honestly think it's because private schools know their students come in with a lot of advantages. They don't have to cover the basics because they know the families have already covered it--plenty of activities, enrichment, educational toys.
But I myself was educated in a poor Communist country where the strategy was similar--it was quite strict but they followed the European model where they didn't much care whether you learned to read until age 7+. So it's also a legit pedagogical philosophy.
In general, though, public schools take on the project of counteracting a lot of social ills and missed opportunities in the lives of their students. It's commendable, really.
I think the dichotomy is private K-12s vs other schools (private K-8s and public elementary and middle schools). The latter need to prepare their kids to apply to middle or high school; the former don't. So the question is why do K-12s take it easy in elementary school and then ramp up in middle school, as opposed to taking a more even pace starting in elementary school. My guess is it's some combination of (a) their view of pedagogy, (b) the lower school can get away with it because the middle school isn't requiring much, (c) their view of what parents want, and (d) it keeps tuition-paying parents of middling students happy until those students can be replaced by proven-to-be-stronger kids in 6th and/or 9th (more likely on financial aid).
Lots and lots of tutoring on the side at the progressive privates.
Because private schools purport to be more about socialization and character development than skills based in the early years. It's the difference between your colleagues at work who always have their heads down working and the ones who go out for lunch and golf.