Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Raskolnikov, as far as the cost of Regents being less than St. Andrews/St. Stephens, I believe you are correct; however if price is a big part of the equation I would send my kids to a public school and use the money I would have spent at Regents on summer enrichment programs and/or tutors. I think you would end up with a much more satisfactory outcome.
As far as the Trivium. I do not have a strong idea any more as to it's effectiveness as I don't think Regents did a complete job of implementing it. They are now in a somewhat modified version of the trivium as I understand it. The other private schools discussed also make available a good deal of Latin and other languages in the early grades, as well as exposure to much more literature and history than you will find in most public schools. Regents has done a great job with history, in my opinion. The issue with a system such as the trivium is getting colleges to understand what you are doing so that your child's coursework will be recognized by them, assuming that getting into better colleges is important. As far as public schools, two of the best Certamen teams in the city are from Small and Kealing Middle Schools. There are many other enrichment programs available to kids in public schools, including Eanes/Westlake High, than I realized. I would not say that the fact that Eanes does spend some time 'teaching to TAKS' has had a big detrimental impact on their overall ability to create some excellent programs. Again, the problem in public schools is getting in to the excellent programs.
As to the spiritual/religious aspects of the schools, yes they are quite different. I am what most would consider a fundamentalist Bible believing Christian; at least I hope most would consider me so. We initially were drawn to Regents because of what we felt was a similar mindset. What I have come to realize is that an organization or school can not be Christian; only people can choose to be Christian and to live out their lives as such. Regents espouses a more fundamental belief system, but in my experience, does not exhibit a Christian ethic or Christ's love in much of what it does. Without going into too many specifics, I would say that there is very little grace shown and little is done to foster a loving Christian environment. They are 'rule-followers', e.g. strong emphasis on wearing your uniform correctly, with strict punishment for infractions; but there is little done to stop bullying, break up cliques or encourage acceptance of kids who are different. Example: there was a new girl at the school who was 'of color' and I noticed one day at lunch she was sitting by herself, I asked my kids about it and they said that 'they didn't really know her'. I mentioned it to some teachers, who eat with the kids in the cafeteria every day, and they felt it wasn't up to them to try to remedy the situation. This is just one anecdote to try and demonstrate what I feel is a somewhat cold attitude toward 'outsiders' who are different from the 'norm'. I talked with my own children about the situation and insisted that they make some steps to reach out to the new girl and include her in their groups. It was stunning to me that teachers and administrators had done nothing for months, and had apparently not even noticed it as a problem. My children all noticed the hypocrisy, and not just over the example I gave you, of the administration and some faculty in multiple situations. Hypocrisy is, to me, much more difficult to overcome in a Christian walk than almost any other form of sin. I would rather deal with one who is openly apostate; at least you know what you are dealing with. Hypocrites, especially when they are in a position of power over children, are capable of more damage than almost any other influence. The experience of hearing a Christian message that is not met with Christian actions caused confusion and doubt for my children on a number of occasions. The confusion was exacerbated by hearing a message of 'excellence' when they had teachers who were not capable of teaching their subjects. There was also an obvious disconnect between the emphasis/spending/accommodations made for sports and that made for academics. The football program is typically never without, while programs that were promised year after year were not delivered. Overall it became more and more difficult to defend the methods of the school as my children became more aware of the inconsistencies.
The Episcopal schools have chapel services every day, but I would say that the message is often not one that would be considered Christian. Overall I think they would be better served by having fewer chapel services as the procedure becomes more 'religious' than spiritual. I would also say that the Episcopal Schools are pretty openly liberal politically and you do see it in some of the classroom instruction. Biology becomes a place to mouth acceptance of whatever environmental babble is most current. That can be a little annoying. The faculty includes openly gay instructors as well as some with unusual belief systems that quite obviously aren't Christian. All that said the environment is one of inclusion, acceptance and service. The teachers, even ones I disagree with politically, are all very interested in making sure each student is able to grasp their subject. As long as the student is willing to keep trying the teacher will typically keep working with them. There is also a system of daily 'advisories' where students gather with a teacher who is their 'advisor', one who they do not have for a class, with 6 or 8 other students. During the advisory period students get to talk about any problems they are having with classes and they get to know the other students in the advisory who they might not have in other classes. It provides a 'forced' opportunity for students to get to know other students and hear about issues they are having, helping to plug them in with a few other kids. It was great for my kids when they were new at the school. It minimizes someone getting 'cut out of the herd' without a teacher noticing. There is also an overt effort to make sure all are students are included in some activity, for freshman and sophomore years students are required to participate in a team sport; primarily so that they will be forced to interact with a group of students they might not otherwise meet. This also minimizes the differences that often creep in to schools between 'jocks' and other kids. Since everyone has had to be on a team they all at least know each other. The overall culture resulting from the methodologies in place is one where every student is valued and given an opportunity to excel. Kids tend not to be pigeon-holed into stereotypical groups that they can never break out of. It leaves them with the ability to make up their own minds and to live out their lives within whatever belief system they choose. This is all done within the overarching presence of the Episcopal Church complete with Chapel and Chaplains, the message of "God loves all of you, so we love all of you" is pretty hard to miss. I can work within that framework to define what I believe are Christian principles and point out where I believe the schools teaching have gone astray. I think the message that all Christians need to focus on more is that of love and forgiveness, God can handle the judgment and condemnation.
So, as far as the different spiritual aspects of the schools, I try to focus on a spiritual existence that does not revolve around entities over which I have no control, or to cede the teachings of a belief system to any school or other group. We tried it and it didn't work out so well. I would prefer my children come to a belief that reflects what they read in God's word as revealed through the Bible, and what God chooses to reveal to them in their prayer life and through the lives of other Christians. Hoping that they would temper that belief by challenging/comparing/debating those beliefs with other more mature Christians. The name they choose to hang on those beliefs is less important to me.
Last edited by got the t-shirt; 01-12-2009 at 11:59 AM..
I would not consider St. Michael's fully comparable to St. Stephen's or St. Andrew's. St. Michael's, for one, is a Catholic institution, which would, I assume, provide a somewhat different religious experience. While I did not attend the institution myself, and cannot speak from personal experience, the general impression I have gotten is that St. Michael's is somewhat less academically rigorous than its Episcopalian counterparts, but rather more rigorous than Regents, and thus, it falls somewhere in the middle. Though, I hear it also falls somewhere in the middle in terms of price, which may give it the same approximate value. St. Stephen's and St. Andrew's are well known for their competitive edge in most nationwide academic competitions, but I have no information on St. Michael's performance. I do know that my alma mater has consistently beaten them in Latin competitions and football, but that is the only specific information I have. I do know a number of students who struggled with the curriculum at St. Andrew's/St. Stephen's who ended up going to St. Michael's and found that the pace of this school was better for them. However, this may just mean that the teaching style of St. Michael's was better suited to their individual needs, or that they are better equipped to handle students who desire less academic rigor, but are still able to provide opportunities for ambitious students to excel in more difficult, fast-paced classes.
Of course, to a large extent, your academic experience is what you make of it. If I try to be as objective as possible, taking focus away from my own feelings on the schools and basing my answers on the programs and educators provided, I would say that St. Stephens probably has the most in terms of educational opportunities (but is also the most expensive), with St. Andrews at a close second and St. Michael's at a reasonable third, while Regents putters aimlessly around the track, having no real idea as to what, exactly, it's even doing outside or how it got there, and wondering idly as to what these other people are all running around for, eventually coming in at a rather cumbersome fourth, finding out that it was supposed to be participating in a race, and then telling the other competitors that they lost because God made it so.
There is another area in which I feel Regents flounders while St. Stephen's and St. Andrew's succeed: in encouraging individual students to excel outside of school. In my experience, when a faculty member or student at Regents achieved something - for instance, when a student got to state in a speech competition or a faculty member directed a play that was ranked highly in a national competition - Regents was always very quick to claim credit for the success of its members, even though they provided little encouragement, and often threw up roadblocks for the students involved. Though Regents originally refused to put a speech and debate coach on salary through the school, asking parents to pay themselves for the coaching, they were quick to note that one of their students had placed in the competition under their fine tutelage.
At the other schools mentioned, however, the school celebrates individual achievement: in chapel each day, other students are always eager to announce that a member of their community won an award, was all-state at SPC, became a national merit scholar, finally got their book published, got their masters, got a gold on the national Latin exam, etc, without trying to claim this as a victory for the school itself. They celebrate with their students when their students achieve, spur them on to victory, and encourage other members of the community to do the same, but they never act as if they had a hand in the achievements of their students and faculty. They don't try to claim responsibility for their students' successes, but are proud and enthusiastic about the high caliber of work that is present within their community. And they are generally willing to accommodate the students' endeavors financially, or by helping a student to schedule work around their extracurricular obligations.
Regents, unfortunately, seems to want it both ways: while they do not want to be responsible - financially or morally - for the wrongdoings of their students or faculty, and in fact have occasionally been known to keep faculty members after parents have brought forth allegations of misconduct, they also want credit for the achievements of their students. They are certainly quick to claim that they got a girl into Duke even though the girl was actually rejected when she applied straight from Regents, and later transferred. It would be sort of like if the publishing company that rejected Harry Potter when J.K. Rowling submitted it for publication now came to her demanding a cut of the profits: they want none of the risk or responsibility, but all of the reward.
Ultimately, if you want an environment with a spiritual, but accepting message that encourages students to succeed in whatever area that attracts them, I would implore you to look further into St. Andrew's or St. Stephen's, both of which also have amazing financial aid packages available to any students who cannot afford to pay, and many who can. (I also feel that it's worth mentioning that as a student from a family that was not very wealthy, I never felt that other students treated me differently because of my socioeconomic status.)
If you want to know anything more about the comparative religious, social or academic experience in Regents vs. that found in one of the schools mentioned above, I would be more than happy to elaborate on my experiences as a student at each.
I appreciate everyone's comments. I have heard a lot of positive things about Regents but it also seems that certain people really do not like them. This reminds me of Kirby Hall, either you love the school or dislike it intensely.
"They are certainly quick to claim that they got a girl into Duke even though the girl was actually rejected when she applied straight from Regents, and later transferred. It would be sort of like if the publishing company that rejected Harry Potter when J.K. Rowling submitted it for publication now came to her demanding a cut of the profits: they want none of the risk or responsibility, but all of the reward."
The only thing I'll say about this, is that I went to a Regents open house and I believe the girl whom your speaking about was there. Anyway Regents actually went out of their way to point out that Duke did not initially accept her because they weren't sure about Regents. But that she later got into Duke and has done very well there. She seemed impressive, though, and philosophical about the whole situation. I don't quite see how the JK Rowlings analogy works. If Regents had rejected the girl (kicked her out of school), THEN she got into Duke and then Regents was claiming credit for her success, then that would be more like what you are saying.
Also, what you're saying about wanting to make sure people know something positive came from the school is no different with any school. It's called marketing, and you have to do it to survive. Actually a quick look at other private schools in town's websites, and I'm seeing far more 'marketing' and bragging about colleges their students have gotten into than Regents' website.
Having said that, gotthet-shirt's post was very thoughtful and extremely well written. And texodus had some good points as well, even though it seemed more like a diatribe.
It's interesting that nobody ever talks about City School here. That seems like a great private Christian school that doesn't have the downside of the Episcopal schools or Regents, and costs less too. We will be visiting there as well.
City school is pretty new and fairly small, so it does not surprise me that it has not been mentioned. Please let us know of your impressions when you visit. Does City School go to 12th grade?
Khabele is also a new, fairly small private high school in Austin (actually 6-12). It is not Christian orientated. It is growing fairly fast. I know some people who thought that it was heaven on earth for their kids but shortly after discovering it, they were transfered out of town. From its web site, I don't think that it would be a good fit for Raskolnikov, but it might be an alternative for some.
The only thing I'll say about this, is that I went to a Regents open house and I believe the girl whom your speaking about was there. Anyway Regents actually went out of their way to point out that Duke did not initially accept her because they weren't sure about Regents. But that she later got into Duke and has done very well there. She seemed impressive, though, and philosophical about the whole situation. I don't quite see how the JK Rowlings analogy works. If Regents had rejected the girl (kicked her out of school), THEN she got into Duke and then Regents was claiming credit for her success, then that would be more like what you are saying.
Also, what you're saying about wanting to make sure people know something positive came from the school is no different with any school. It's called marketing, and you have to do it to survive. Actually a quick look at other private schools in town's websites, and I'm seeing far more 'marketing' and bragging about colleges their students have gotten into than Regents' website.
You do raise a good point about the marketing - I have often noticed that all of these schools have used their websites and other press to create somewhat inflated or inaccurate impressions of their school. One of the schools I mentioned, for example, had a vastly underrepresented minority population, but on the old homepage of their website, which had photographs of relatively few of their students, had at least one picture (if not more) of each of their students from said underrepresented minority group in an attempt to make their school look more diverse than it actually was. I imagine that it's very difficult to promote oneself without being at least a little bit dishonest, be it through omission or emphasis. I just know that the overall impression was a different one. The atmosphere at my high school was more congratulatory, and less pompous. Their marketing tactics are more, "let the results speak for themselves." They emphasize the high caliber of students and faculty they attract and/or make available, rather than claiming that they are somehow responsible for the quality of the work. It's a small distinction, but an important one.
Obviously, this is just my own experience, and they may be changing. I was genuinely surprised to hear that they were so free with that information regarding that former student - while I was enrolled there, teachers liked to omit this information when telling students that they should stay at Regents if they wanted to go on to a good school. I do hope, however, that my comment before did not come across as derogatory in any way to the young woman involved - in my admittedly limited contact with her, she seemed very thoughtful, charming and intelligent - the sort of girl who certainly belongs at a school like Duke - but Regents' shoddy history with accreditation likely proved problematic for her. In all fairness, I do think she was part of one of their first graduating classes, but problems with accreditation have continued to plague them and their students.
You're right about the analogy; I'd written it for a different part of that paragraph and then reformatted the response without thinking it through. This was intended to be about the speech and debate team - when they denied funding and made it difficult for interested students to register through the school, but then published in their newsletter and other press materials that they offered speech and debate, and that members of the Regents speech and debate team had been competitive at state. It still has its problems and leaps of logic, but I do so love a vaguely literary simile.
I am not very familiar with City School because it’s so new, but I have heard good things. A friend's younger sister attends City School.
Also, does anyone know if St. Andrews has Kindergarten? It doesn't seem like they do. So where do kids who attend these Episcopal private schools go for Kindergarten?
St. Andrews does not have kindergarten, there is an explanation on their web site, when they started there were several Episcopal kindergarten programs and they did not want to compete with these established programs (St. Davids, All Saints, and Good Shepherd). So St Andrews kids attend Episcopal kindergartens that are part of a preschool-K program at various churches as well public school and several private schools that have pre-K and K programs (St. Francis School, Redeemer, Hyde Park, etc) as well as places like Child's Day that also have kindergartens.
Did you know that kindergarten is not required in Texas? Compulsory education starts with first grade.
Last edited by centralaustinite; 01-20-2009 at 08:55 AM..
St. Andrews does not have kindergarten, there is an explanation on their web site, when they started there were several Episcopal kindergarten programs and they did not want to compete with these established programs (St. Davids, All Saints, and Good Shepherd). So St Andrews kids attend Episcopal kindergartens that are part of a preschool-K program at various churches as well public school and several private schools that have pre-K and K programs (St. Francis School, Redeemer, Hyde Park, etc) as well as places like Child's Day that also have kindergartens.
Did you know that kindergarten is not required in Texas? Compulsory education starts with first grade.
I noticed a question regarding City School by Raskolnikov. While I have not had any of my children at City School I do know several people who have. I also had a good relationship with a former administrator at Regents who moved to City School for a time and I know some of the faculty. From what I know of it I would recommend a hard look at it. They seem to have a great spirit about them. They only have programs through 8th grade, so if you are making plans for high school you will have to keep looking.
I would also recommend a tour of Veritas Academy. There are a number of former Regents family and faculty who landed there. Their faculty are generally more experienced, in fact they have had several of the more experienced teachers who left Regents upper school take positions there. it is certainly worth a look. They currently only go through 9th grade, but I believe they are trying to add a grade each year so that their classes can progress and graduate from the school. I'm not 100% sure about that, so if it's important to you please confirm with them. From what I have seen of them, both parents and faculty, I would certainly think they deserve consideration. I wish they had come along a litte sooner.
Toured both City School and Veritas, and Regents. All look great. City School is moving next year to further north east, which isn't the greatest for us location wise but they seem like a great place. We're seriously considering all three.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Other options
