Seminar Program in SD school district

[Coronita]

[quote=Rhett][quote=sdrealtor]I know plenty of dispassionate highly educated people making tons of money.[/quote]

Of course – somebody has to balance out all the passionate highly educated people that *aren’t* making money.[/quote]

Well, don’t get me wrong about high educated people. I think it’s pretty important. I just trying to figure out what do they teach in GATE versus non-gate during these early years that makes certain kids so “special”.

What do they teach that is different in GATE?

……
AN, if you really want to push your kid, really the solution is to put your kid into an affluent school district with over-zealous,over-accomplished kids and pushy parents…Then your kid will hear about from annoying parents and their kids about how great and accomplished they are and how great their life is…
to the point that your own kid feels like an underaccomplished dip…then they’ll self-motive to be the best….

It worked for me…..And I’m pretty sure it will work for you…since your kid most likely will have that ultra-competitiveness that comes from your roots, and they won’t put up with peers that outdo them, much less about hearing about their peers……

I almost feel kinda guilty sending my kid to Chinese school. It’s miserable in there. If I were her, I would hate it. I’m thinking perhaps a few weeks of it over the summer, she’ll hate it so much, that I won’t send her back there and just tell her to motivate to learn herself to avoid it.

[an]

flu, I would assume private school have a higher concentration of “over-zealous,over-accomplished kids and pushy parents” than any affluent school district out there. Which is why I putting them into private school from Preschool through 2nd grade. I was pondering whether it would be worth it (save some $) to send them to public school if they can get into the Seminar program. But I definitely will be playing it buy ears in a few years.

Assuming my kids is smart enough (I will crack the whip, so if they’re not self driven, I’ll drive them), I don’t know if private school or even affluent school district will make that big of a difference, especially when comparing with Mira Mesa School, when it comes to Jr. High and High School. I think private school (especially Montessori) makes a bigger difference in K-5 because in public K-5, there’s 1 single curriculum that everybody have to stick with. While in 6-12, you have a lot of choices and you can push yourself as hard as you want to.

I know someone who are CEO & CFO with their kids going to Torrey Pine and one of their kid who graduated last year didn’t even get into any school better than CSU San Marcos. I know another CEO & CFO who have their kid going to Cathedral HS and their kid end up attending Jr. College after HS. Then I know gardeners living in MM who their kids went to Cornell and UCLA. When I was in MMHS, there were plenty of very driven students who end up going to Harvard, Cornell, Standford, UCB, UCLA, UCSD, UCI, etc. Those kids tend to hang around w/ like minded kids, not the slackers. So, just because you’re in affluent district doesn’t mean you can be anymore driven.

I personally think having 1 parent stay at home and going to MMHS will make a bigger difference than 2 parents working long hours and going to TPHS. Also, to get into top rated school need more than just the name of your HS. GPA, SAT, essay, leadership, sports, community service all play a big role. You don’t need to be in TPHS to do all of that. Especially if you have a parent home pushing you to do all of that. No time to slack.

[an]

flu, I would assume private school have a higher concentration of “over-zealous,over-accomplished kids and pushy parents” than any affluent school district out there. Which is why I putting them into private school from Preschool through 2nd grade. I was pondering whether it would be worth it (save some $) to send them to public school if they can get into the Seminar program. But I definitely will be playing it buy ears in a few years.

Assuming my kids is smart enough (I will crack the whip, so if they’re not self driven, I’ll drive them), I don’t know if private school or even affluent school district will make that big of a difference, especially when comparing with Mira Mesa School, when it comes to Jr. High and High School. I think private school (especially Montessori) makes a bigger difference in K-5 because in public K-5, there’s 1 single curriculum that everybody have to stick with. While in 6-12, you have a lot of choices and you can push yourself as hard as you want to.

I know someone who are CEO & CFO with their kids going to Torrey Pine and one of their kid who graduated last year didn’t even get into any school better than CSU San Marcos. I know another CEO & CFO who have their kid going to Cathedral HS and their kid end up attending Jr. College after HS. Then I know gardeners living in MM who their kids went to Cornell and UCLA. When I was in MMHS, there were plenty of very driven students who end up going to Harvard, Cornell, Standford, UCB, UCLA, UCSD, UCI, etc. Those kids tend to hang around w/ like minded kids, not the slackers. So, just because you’re in affluent district doesn’t mean you can be anymore driven.

I personally think having 1 parent stay at home and going to MMHS will make a bigger difference than 2 parents working long hours and going to TPHS. Also, to get into top rated school need more than just the name of your HS. GPA, SAT, essay, leadership, sports, community service all play a big role. You don’t need to be in TPHS to do all of that. Especially if you have a parent home pushing you to do all of that. No time to slack.

[an]

flu, I would assume private school have a higher concentration of “over-zealous,over-accomplished kids and pushy parents” than any affluent school district out there. Which is why I putting them into private school from Preschool through 2nd grade. I was pondering whether it would be worth it (save some $) to send them to public school if they can get into the Seminar program. But I definitely will be playing it buy ears in a few years.

Assuming my kids is smart enough (I will crack the whip, so if they’re not self driven, I’ll drive them), I don’t know if private school or even affluent school district will make that big of a difference, especially when comparing with Mira Mesa School, when it comes to Jr. High and High School. I think private school (especially Montessori) makes a bigger difference in K-5 because in public K-5, there’s 1 single curriculum that everybody have to stick with. While in 6-12, you have a lot of choices and you can push yourself as hard as you want to.

I know someone who are CEO & CFO with their kids going to Torrey Pine and one of their kid who graduated last year didn’t even get into any school better than CSU San Marcos. I know another CEO & CFO who have their kid going to Cathedral HS and their kid end up attending Jr. College after HS. Then I know gardeners living in MM who their kids went to Cornell and UCLA. When I was in MMHS, there were plenty of very driven students who end up going to Harvard, Cornell, Standford, UCB, UCLA, UCSD, UCI, etc. Those kids tend to hang around w/ like minded kids, not the slackers. So, just because you’re in affluent district doesn’t mean you can be anymore driven.

I personally think having 1 parent stay at home and going to MMHS will make a bigger difference than 2 parents working long hours and going to TPHS. Also, to get into top rated school need more than just the name of your HS. GPA, SAT, essay, leadership, sports, community service all play a big role. You don’t need to be in TPHS to do all of that. Especially if you have a parent home pushing you to do all of that. No time to slack.

[an]

flu, I would assume private school have a higher concentration of “over-zealous,over-accomplished kids and pushy parents” than any affluent school district out there. Which is why I putting them into private school from Preschool through 2nd grade. I was pondering whether it would be worth it (save some $) to send them to public school if they can get into the Seminar program. But I definitely will be playing it buy ears in a few years.

Assuming my kids is smart enough (I will crack the whip, so if they’re not self driven, I’ll drive them), I don’t know if private school or even affluent school district will make that big of a difference, especially when comparing with Mira Mesa School, when it comes to Jr. High and High School. I think private school (especially Montessori) makes a bigger difference in K-5 because in public K-5, there’s 1 single curriculum that everybody have to stick with. While in 6-12, you have a lot of choices and you can push yourself as hard as you want to.

I know someone who are CEO & CFO with their kids going to Torrey Pine and one of their kid who graduated last year didn’t even get into any school better than CSU San Marcos. I know another CEO & CFO who have their kid going to Cathedral HS and their kid end up attending Jr. College after HS. Then I know gardeners living in MM who their kids went to Cornell and UCLA. When I was in MMHS, there were plenty of very driven students who end up going to Harvard, Cornell, Standford, UCB, UCLA, UCSD, UCI, etc. Those kids tend to hang around w/ like minded kids, not the slackers. So, just because you’re in affluent district doesn’t mean you can be anymore driven.

I personally think having 1 parent stay at home and going to MMHS will make a bigger difference than 2 parents working long hours and going to TPHS. Also, to get into top rated school need more than just the name of your HS. GPA, SAT, essay, leadership, sports, community service all play a big role. You don’t need to be in TPHS to do all of that. Especially if you have a parent home pushing you to do all of that. No time to slack.

[an]

flu, I would assume private school have a higher concentration of “over-zealous,over-accomplished kids and pushy parents” than any affluent school district out there. Which is why I putting them into private school from Preschool through 2nd grade. I was pondering whether it would be worth it (save some $) to send them to public school if they can get into the Seminar program. But I definitely will be playing it buy ears in a few years.

Assuming my kids is smart enough (I will crack the whip, so if they’re not self driven, I’ll drive them), I don’t know if private school or even affluent school district will make that big of a difference, especially when comparing with Mira Mesa School, when it comes to Jr. High and High School. I think private school (especially Montessori) makes a bigger difference in K-5 because in public K-5, there’s 1 single curriculum that everybody have to stick with. While in 6-12, you have a lot of choices and you can push yourself as hard as you want to.

I know someone who are CEO & CFO with their kids going to Torrey Pine and one of their kid who graduated last year didn’t even get into any school better than CSU San Marcos. I know another CEO & CFO who have their kid going to Cathedral HS and their kid end up attending Jr. College after HS. Then I know gardeners living in MM who their kids went to Cornell and UCLA. When I was in MMHS, there were plenty of very driven students who end up going to Harvard, Cornell, Standford, UCB, UCLA, UCSD, UCI, etc. Those kids tend to hang around w/ like minded kids, not the slackers. So, just because you’re in affluent district doesn’t mean you can be anymore driven.

I personally think having 1 parent stay at home and going to MMHS will make a bigger difference than 2 parents working long hours and going to TPHS. Also, to get into top rated school need more than just the name of your HS. GPA, SAT, essay, leadership, sports, community service all play a big role. You don’t need to be in TPHS to do all of that. Especially if you have a parent home pushing you to do all of that. No time to slack.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]I know plenty of dispassionate highly educated people making tons of money.[/quote]

Does that qualify as being “successful”?

There are also many people who are not highly educated, but are passionate about what they do, who make tons of money.

There are also those who are not highly educated, but are passionate about what they do, who don’t make tons of money, but make a perfectly adequate living.

It all depends on how one defines “success.”[/quote]

I agree 100%. However, education seems to be the strongest indicator of success for the bulk of people. Go to law school or med school and as long as you put your timein at work you are pretty much going to make a lot of money. While its nice to think about passionate folks with limited educations, their numbers are far smaller even though the stories of them are nice to hear.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]I know plenty of dispassionate highly educated people making tons of money.[/quote]

Does that qualify as being “successful”?

There are also many people who are not highly educated, but are passionate about what they do, who make tons of money.

There are also those who are not highly educated, but are passionate about what they do, who don’t make tons of money, but make a perfectly adequate living.

It all depends on how one defines “success.”[/quote]

I agree 100%. However, education seems to be the strongest indicator of success for the bulk of people. Go to law school or med school and as long as you put your timein at work you are pretty much going to make a lot of money. While its nice to think about passionate folks with limited educations, their numbers are far smaller even though the stories of them are nice to hear.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]I know plenty of dispassionate highly educated people making tons of money.[/quote]

Does that qualify as being “successful”?

There are also many people who are not highly educated, but are passionate about what they do, who make tons of money.

There are also those who are not highly educated, but are passionate about what they do, who don’t make tons of money, but make a perfectly adequate living.

It all depends on how one defines “success.”[/quote]

I agree 100%. However, education seems to be the strongest indicator of success for the bulk of people. Go to law school or med school and as long as you put your timein at work you are pretty much going to make a lot of money. While its nice to think about passionate folks with limited educations, their numbers are far smaller even though the stories of them are nice to hear.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]I know plenty of dispassionate highly educated people making tons of money.[/quote]

Does that qualify as being “successful”?

There are also many people who are not highly educated, but are passionate about what they do, who make tons of money.

There are also those who are not highly educated, but are passionate about what they do, who don’t make tons of money, but make a perfectly adequate living.

It all depends on how one defines “success.”[/quote]

I agree 100%. However, education seems to be the strongest indicator of success for the bulk of people. Go to law school or med school and as long as you put your timein at work you are pretty much going to make a lot of money. While its nice to think about passionate folks with limited educations, their numbers are far smaller even though the stories of them are nice to hear.

[sdrealtor]

[quote=CA renter][quote=sdrealtor]I know plenty of dispassionate highly educated people making tons of money.[/quote]

Does that qualify as being “successful”?

There are also many people who are not highly educated, but are passionate about what they do, who make tons of money.

There are also those who are not highly educated, but are passionate about what they do, who don’t make tons of money, but make a perfectly adequate living.

It all depends on how one defines “success.”[/quote]

I agree 100%. However, education seems to be the strongest indicator of success for the bulk of people. Go to law school or med school and as long as you put your timein at work you are pretty much going to make a lot of money. While its nice to think about passionate folks with limited educations, their numbers are far smaller even though the stories of them are nice to hear.

[KSMountain]

[quote=flu]I’m sorry, but can someone help me understand the intense interest in GATE programs?

What do you learn in gate versus non-gate versus what you could learn just by sending your kid to an enrichment program or two…[/quote]

Flu,

Well, this will be a bit of a personal post, but hopefully I can keep from going too far into the weeds:

I was in cluster, in San Diego, throughout the 70’s. There *was* a difference in the education at that time. Was it an unambiguous win? Is it the same now? I don’t know. Here are some anecdotes:

In 5th grade, the cluster kids had a different reading textbook. It was more advanced and much more interesting. The other kids didn’t seem to even notice the bifurcation.

I recall in 8th grade an exercise in a cluster U.S. history class. It was a game with special materials and we were simulating running a naval blockade of the u.s. coast during the civil war. Different groups of students played different roles with different objectives. It was complicated and fun. I dont think this kind of exercise was going on in the other classes.

I recall a class where literally the entire SDUSD film catalog was handed to me and I could order any film or “filmstrip” that interested me, and it would be delivered in a few days and I could watch it. I don’t recall what the rules were about how often I could do this, but it may have been as much as a day a week. I benefited from that I think.

I was in one class where it was a combination of only cluster and seminar folks (we used those same exact terms back then, but quietly, (which is a bit of a weird position to put a kid in, btw)). Anyway, what I recall about this class was it was filled with multiple rotating racks of paperback books, and you could read any of them on class time. Which was cool, I guess, but is that really better than something more structured? I recall I read “Sybil” and “The boy who could make himself disappear” at that time, neither of which are especially cheery stories.

It was also there that I started to observe and form the opinion that the seminar folks were spending too much time with each other. They were the same group of 15 or so segregated into their own classes for say 4 out of 6 classes. So they really weren’t exposed to simply the quantity (let alone the diversity) of the full student body – and it showed.

I had a friend in seminar who told me they had explored, for like a week (with the teacher as facilitator), how our junior high school might go about seceding from the U.S. I thought that was pretty cool at the time. Now I’m not so sure that was a good use of a week, but perhaps it could be, depending on the teacher.

So my biased summary of all this might be:
cluster – probably good.
seminar – the kids are definitely smart but maybe not so good for socialization.

As a parent, I think you’d want to evaluate whether you thought the increased academic opportunities warranted the narrowed socialization. Maybe you combine it with enforced sports say to keep some balance. You’d also want to (try to) be comfortable your kid could handle less structure. I saw boys and girls both get into trouble.

I have plenty more to say on this topic – anyone interested in 30 yr old info/perspective feel free to pm me.

[KSMountain]

[quote=flu]I’m sorry, but can someone help me understand the intense interest in GATE programs?

What do you learn in gate versus non-gate versus what you could learn just by sending your kid to an enrichment program or two…[/quote]

Flu,

Well, this will be a bit of a personal post, but hopefully I can keep from going too far into the weeds:

I was in cluster, in San Diego, throughout the 70’s. There *was* a difference in the education at that time. Was it an unambiguous win? Is it the same now? I don’t know. Here are some anecdotes:

In 5th grade, the cluster kids had a different reading textbook. It was more advanced and much more interesting. The other kids didn’t seem to even notice the bifurcation.

I recall in 8th grade an exercise in a cluster U.S. history class. It was a game with special materials and we were simulating running a naval blockade of the u.s. coast during the civil war. Different groups of students played different roles with different objectives. It was complicated and fun. I dont think this kind of exercise was going on in the other classes.

I recall a class where literally the entire SDUSD film catalog was handed to me and I could order any film or “filmstrip” that interested me, and it would be delivered in a few days and I could watch it. I don’t recall what the rules were about how often I could do this, but it may have been as much as a day a week. I benefited from that I think.

I was in one class where it was a combination of only cluster and seminar folks (we used those same exact terms back then, but quietly, (which is a bit of a weird position to put a kid in, btw)). Anyway, what I recall about this class was it was filled with multiple rotating racks of paperback books, and you could read any of them on class time. Which was cool, I guess, but is that really better than something more structured? I recall I read “Sybil” and “The boy who could make himself disappear” at that time, neither of which are especially cheery stories.

It was also there that I started to observe and form the opinion that the seminar folks were spending too much time with each other. They were the same group of 15 or so segregated into their own classes for say 4 out of 6 classes. So they really weren’t exposed to simply the quantity (let alone the diversity) of the full student body – and it showed.

I had a friend in seminar who told me they had explored, for like a week (with the teacher as facilitator), how our junior high school might go about seceding from the U.S. I thought that was pretty cool at the time. Now I’m not so sure that was a good use of a week, but perhaps it could be, depending on the teacher.

So my biased summary of all this might be:
cluster – probably good.
seminar – the kids are definitely smart but maybe not so good for socialization.

As a parent, I think you’d want to evaluate whether you thought the increased academic opportunities warranted the narrowed socialization. Maybe you combine it with enforced sports say to keep some balance. You’d also want to (try to) be comfortable your kid could handle less structure. I saw boys and girls both get into trouble.

I have plenty more to say on this topic – anyone interested in 30 yr old info/perspective feel free to pm me.

[KSMountain]

[quote=flu]I’m sorry, but can someone help me understand the intense interest in GATE programs?

What do you learn in gate versus non-gate versus what you could learn just by sending your kid to an enrichment program or two…[/quote]

Flu,

Well, this will be a bit of a personal post, but hopefully I can keep from going too far into the weeds:

I was in cluster, in San Diego, throughout the 70’s. There *was* a difference in the education at that time. Was it an unambiguous win? Is it the same now? I don’t know. Here are some anecdotes:

In 5th grade, the cluster kids had a different reading textbook. It was more advanced and much more interesting. The other kids didn’t seem to even notice the bifurcation.

I recall in 8th grade an exercise in a cluster U.S. history class. It was a game with special materials and we were simulating running a naval blockade of the u.s. coast during the civil war. Different groups of students played different roles with different objectives. It was complicated and fun. I dont think this kind of exercise was going on in the other classes.

I recall a class where literally the entire SDUSD film catalog was handed to me and I could order any film or “filmstrip” that interested me, and it would be delivered in a few days and I could watch it. I don’t recall what the rules were about how often I could do this, but it may have been as much as a day a week. I benefited from that I think.

I was in one class where it was a combination of only cluster and seminar folks (we used those same exact terms back then, but quietly, (which is a bit of a weird position to put a kid in, btw)). Anyway, what I recall about this class was it was filled with multiple rotating racks of paperback books, and you could read any of them on class time. Which was cool, I guess, but is that really better than something more structured? I recall I read “Sybil” and “The boy who could make himself disappear” at that time, neither of which are especially cheery stories.

It was also there that I started to observe and form the opinion that the seminar folks were spending too much time with each other. They were the same group of 15 or so segregated into their own classes for say 4 out of 6 classes. So they really weren’t exposed to simply the quantity (let alone the diversity) of the full student body – and it showed.

I had a friend in seminar who told me they had explored, for like a week (with the teacher as facilitator), how our junior high school might go about seceding from the U.S. I thought that was pretty cool at the time. Now I’m not so sure that was a good use of a week, but perhaps it could be, depending on the teacher.

So my biased summary of all this might be:
cluster – probably good.
seminar – the kids are definitely smart but maybe not so good for socialization.

As a parent, I think you’d want to evaluate whether you thought the increased academic opportunities warranted the narrowed socialization. Maybe you combine it with enforced sports say to keep some balance. You’d also want to (try to) be comfortable your kid could handle less structure. I saw boys and girls both get into trouble.

I have plenty more to say on this topic – anyone interested in 30 yr old info/perspective feel free to pm me.

[KSMountain]

[quote=flu]I’m sorry, but can someone help me understand the intense interest in GATE programs?

What do you learn in gate versus non-gate versus what you could learn just by sending your kid to an enrichment program or two…[/quote]

Flu,

Well, this will be a bit of a personal post, but hopefully I can keep from going too far into the weeds:

I was in cluster, in San Diego, throughout the 70’s. There *was* a difference in the education at that time. Was it an unambiguous win? Is it the same now? I don’t know. Here are some anecdotes:

In 5th grade, the cluster kids had a different reading textbook. It was more advanced and much more interesting. The other kids didn’t seem to even notice the bifurcation.

I recall in 8th grade an exercise in a cluster U.S. history class. It was a game with special materials and we were simulating running a naval blockade of the u.s. coast during the civil war. Different groups of students played different roles with different objectives. It was complicated and fun. I dont think this kind of exercise was going on in the other classes.

I recall a class where literally the entire SDUSD film catalog was handed to me and I could order any film or “filmstrip” that interested me, and it would be delivered in a few days and I could watch it. I don’t recall what the rules were about how often I could do this, but it may have been as much as a day a week. I benefited from that I think.

I was in one class where it was a combination of only cluster and seminar folks (we used those same exact terms back then, but quietly, (which is a bit of a weird position to put a kid in, btw)). Anyway, what I recall about this class was it was filled with multiple rotating racks of paperback books, and you could read any of them on class time. Which was cool, I guess, but is that really better than something more structured? I recall I read “Sybil” and “The boy who could make himself disappear” at that time, neither of which are especially cheery stories.

It was also there that I started to observe and form the opinion that the seminar folks were spending too much time with each other. They were the same group of 15 or so segregated into their own classes for say 4 out of 6 classes. So they really weren’t exposed to simply the quantity (let alone the diversity) of the full student body – and it showed.

I had a friend in seminar who told me they had explored, for like a week (with the teacher as facilitator), how our junior high school might go about seceding from the U.S. I thought that was pretty cool at the time. Now I’m not so sure that was a good use of a week, but perhaps it could be, depending on the teacher.

So my biased summary of all this might be:
cluster – probably good.
seminar – the kids are definitely smart but maybe not so good for socialization.

As a parent, I think you’d want to evaluate whether you thought the increased academic opportunities warranted the narrowed socialization. Maybe you combine it with enforced sports say to keep some balance. You’d also want to (try to) be comfortable your kid could handle less structure. I saw boys and girls both get into trouble.

I have plenty more to say on this topic – anyone interested in 30 yr old info/perspective feel free to pm me.

[Author]

Posts