We have had an interesting (at least for us) discussion in our family: which is “better” for a student to attend?:
(a) entering a K-12 school at an early entry point like K or 1st grade, so that the student/family doesn’t need to worry about high school admissions stuff like grades, SSAT, ECs, etc.; or
(b) picking a school that ends before high school and then having your student separately apply to high school.
Intuitively, K-12 schools are a bit odd to me now that I think of them as a parent. For example, if I had gone to one of these, without any change of school, it would have been shocking to me when I started college, after being with the same people, seeing the same buildings, taking the same route from home to school etc. for 13 years or so.
Also, can schools really predict at pre-K admissions time as to how good students will be academically in later years? Realistically speaking, won’t some kids accepted into K at the age of 5 be vastly different persons when they are 13 or 14? Will going to school with these children help high performers?
It seems to me that splitting the lower school and high school is a much better approach. I would think that a change of scenery would be good for all, as grade 9-12 high schools would GENERALLY have a better track record to judge their accepted students (e.g., several years of grades, ISEE/SSAT scores, recs, extracurriculars, etc.)
One of the administrators in our child’s K-12 school once told me that “research” shows this is not the case. I’m curious whether anyone on CC actually knows about research on this issue. It just seems to me that there is a lot to be said for the separate school approach.
I fully appreciate concepts like “you mileage will vary”, but what I am talking about is the fundamental concept of sending a child to the same school for 13 years vs. breaking it up for lower school and high school, assuming all schools are equally good.
All responses (except for a lock or ban from SkiEurope ?) are welcome!