Reviews

Rejection is a normal part of any admissions process, and we accept it. However, the reasoning provided raises important concerns about the approach to early education.

After the assessment, we were informed that Woodcreek students aged 4 to 5 can ‘read full sentences, identify whole diagrams, write numbers in words up to 100, and do basic mathematics.’ While this may be true, considering that academic structures and learning speeds differ from one school to another, we were surprised to be told that since our child ‘cannot read a full sentence, cannot count to 100 without missing steps, and cannot write 1 to 100 in words,’ they do not qualify for admission—not just in the intended class but in any lower class either. The explanation given was that there are ‘too many inclusions to add more,’ which raises questions about whether the admissions process is designed to assess potential or exclude those who do not fit a predefined mold.

During the discussion, one of the assessment teachers chuckled while I was asking questions. It is worth considering what exactly was amusing in a conversation about a child’s education. If a professional tasked with evaluating young learners finds humor in a parent seeking clarity on admission standards, it naturally raises concerns about the objectivity and professionalism of the process.

After sharing the assessment results and feedback with the person who originally recommended the school, they were equally surprised. They were aware of another child who had been admitted into the same level despite not meeting the same standards. This inconsistency suggests that the selection criteria may be more fluid than presented.

Two other international schools conducted assessments and welcomed our child into their programs. This underscores an important reality—different institutions approach early learning in different ways. Some focus on potential and developmental growth, while others appear to prioritize rigid academic thresholds at an age where learning ability varies significantly.

It would be beneficial for Woodcreek to reflect on whether its admissions process aligns with the foundational purpose of early education. If the goal is to nurture and develop young learners, then any system that preemptively filters them out based on skills they are meant to acquire deserves reconsideration.