What would you do? The opposite of redshirting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DD was born at just over 34 weeks, and came home with me. No one ever suggested there was brain risk involved (they did try hard to keep from coming until lung maturity). I have certainly have never thought it a Miracle that she was developmentally normal and even (gasp!) became an extremely bright AAP student.

I am glad your daughter is OK. Tell me - do you think it makes sense that another woman's daughter, who was conceived on the same night as your daughter but born at full term, isn't fit to attend K but your DD is?

I'm the PP on this, and I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. Here's an attempt to answer. 34-35 weeks is technically premie, and she spent extra time sleeping her first few weeks. But after she wa six months old, we were not mentally age adjusting for anything, and she met her milestones. So, when she was 5, it would have never crossed my mind to age adjust for K or to use her premie status As a favor in decision making.

My point was that with 34-35 you need to be concerned with lung development. It turns out my DC had bad reflux and was a problem eater (at age 12, we still have issues with this) and being a premie probably made this worse. She had some jaundice for the first week, which is also common in premies. But no one ever suggested she was at significant risk for brain damage. A 24 weeker who may have brain bleeds, okay. But not at 34-35 weeks. And I say this as a parents who was hospitalized at 30 weeks for preecampsia and preterm labor thatt required ongoing magnesium and other IV meds I managed to hold on to her until my doctor was sure her lungs had matured and was able to say she was at a low risk for long term complications. Which was she between 34-35 weeks.

What she was asking was whether you think date of conception should determine school eligibility. She think your daughter is getting an advantage by being eligible to start school a year earlier than your son. And yes, it defies logic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DD was born at just over 34 weeks, and came home with me. No one ever suggested there was brain risk involved (they did try hard to keep from coming until lung maturity). I have certainly have never thought it a Miracle that she was developmentally normal and even (gasp!) became an extremely bright AAP student.

I am glad your daughter is OK. Tell me - do you think it makes sense that another woman's daughter, who was conceived on the same night as your daughter but born at full term, isn't fit to attend K but your DD is?

I'm the PP on this, and I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. Here's an attempt to answer. 34-35 weeks is technically premie, and she spent extra time sleeping her first few weeks. But after she wa six months old, we were not mentally age adjusting for anything, and she met her milestones. So, when she was 5, it would have never crossed my mind to age adjust for K or to use her premie status As a favor in decision making.

My point was that with 34-35 you need to be concerned with lung development. It turns out my DC had bad reflux and was a problem eater (at age 12, we still have issues with this) and being a premie probably made this worse. She had some jaundice for the first week, which is also common in premies. But no one ever suggested she was at significant risk for brain damage. A 24 weeker who may have brain bleeds, okay. But not at 34-35 weeks. And I say this as a parents who was hospitalized at 30 weeks for preecampsia and preterm labor thatt required ongoing magnesium and other IV meds I managed to hold on to her until my doctor was sure her lungs had matured and was able to say she was at a low risk for long term complications. Which was she between 34-35 weeks.

What she was asking was whether you think date of conception should determine school eligibility. She think your daughter is getting an advantage by being eligible to start school a year earlier than your son. And yes, it defies logic.

PP here. My DD started school based on birthdate. I can't imagine why you would look at anything else after the first year unless you had a micro premie. It does deft logic. And common sense.

[Anonymous]

Evidence against red shirting

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/youngest-kid-smartest-kid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DD was born at just over 34 weeks, and came home with me. No one ever suggested there was brain risk involved (they did try hard to keep from coming until lung maturity). I have certainly have never thought it a Miracle that she was developmentally normal and even (gasp!) became an extremely bright AAP student.

I am glad your daughter is OK. Tell me - do you think it makes sense that another woman's daughter, who was conceived on the same night as your daughter but born at full term, isn't fit to attend K but your DD is?

I'm the PP on this, and I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. Here's an attempt to answer. 34-35 weeks is technically premie, and she spent extra time sleeping her first few weeks. But after she wa six months old, we were not mentally age adjusting for anything, and she met her milestones. So, when she was 5, it would have never crossed my mind to age adjust for K or to use her premie status As a favor in decision making.

OP here, and again, I'm glad your daughter is OK. The point I was trying to make is this: if the timing aligned right, your daughter met the cut-off date to start kindergarten owing to nothing else but being born six weeks ahead of her due date. You indicated that she is doing well in school and you are happy with her progress so it was right for her to start attending school when she did. Yet if she had been born six weeks later - on her due date - she would have missed the cut-off, and would have had to start a year later. And presumably, the same posters would have told you that you are crazy to contemplate starting her a year earlier. Yet she is the same child - being born six weeks premature didn't add a full year of maturity to her brain or made her more fit to attend school than her peers born six weeks later. Do you understand now why it seems so ironic to me that children born premature may be deemed "mature" enough to start school, while their peers born on time, a few weeks later, would be "too young"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DS is a rising 8th grader. When I was reading this thread, I asked him how he would have felt if we had skipped K for him (he is a kid who went into K as a strong reader). He was horrified, and said that maybe ES would have been okay, but he never would have been able to manage MS a year early. He's right. He was not organized, mature or motivated enough to manage a rigorous AAP Center when he was 11. An extra year of physical maturity help him too (he wasn't the shortest boy with no body hair). I imagine the same will be true when he starts HS.

When is your son's birthday?

Mid summer

Sorry-- this was me and no coffee yet birthday is mid spring (April)

So in your case, had you wanted to enroll him in K one year ahead, he would have been full six months younger than the cut-off date would have required (Sep 30th). In my case, it would only be THREE WEEKS younger. Won't you agree that makes a difference?

And my DS wouldn't be skipping K. He would just be having it somewhere else. And then - if I think he's ready - I might try to place him in first grade. If he isn't, I'm perfectly happy to send him to public K again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My DS is a rising 8th grader. When I was reading this thread, I asked him how he would have felt if we had skipped K for him (he is a kid who went into K as a strong reader). He was horrified, and said that maybe ES would have been okay, but he never would have been able to manage MS a year early. He's right. He was not organized, mature or motivated enough to manage a rigorous AAP Center when he was 11. An extra year of physical maturity help him too (he wasn't the shortest boy with no body hair). I imagine the same will be true when he starts HS.

When is your son's birthday?

Mid summer

Sorry-- this was me and no coffee yet birthday is mid spring (April)

So in your case, had you wanted to enroll him in K one year ahead, he would have been full six months younger than the cut-off date would have required (Sep 30th). In my case, it would only be THREE WEEKS younger. Won't you agree that makes a difference?

And my DS wouldn't be skipping K. He would just be having it somewhere else. And then - if I think he's ready - I might try to place him in first grade. If he isn't, I'm perfectly happy to send him to public K again.

I'm sure this would make a difference to some degree, and I don't know how things would have worked out if he was 6 months older obviously. I will say that, in general, (and your DC could be different) boys are much less emotionally mature than girls, and it can help them a lot to give them the benefit of time for reasons that have nothing to do with intelligence or academics. But mostly, I though it was interesting to hear the perspective of a bright, academically advanced kid. I'm not sure I would have immediately though of middle school transition as an issue, but he is very right.

I would talk to the principal and really listen to what s/he advises. In affluent FCPS schools, they see tons of bright, academically advanced kids, and they have no incentive to place your kid in K if it's a bad fit. And ask them about how they would handle an advanced reader. It might surprise you how well equipped schools in this area are to deal with this (although I'm sure some schools don't do as well). But as PP said, this is why all K classes have IAs-- to differentiate instruction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DD was born at just over 34 weeks, and came home with me. No one ever suggested there was brain risk involved (they did try hard to keep from coming until lung maturity). I have certainly have never thought it a Miracle that she was developmentally normal and even (gasp!) became an extremely bright AAP student.

I am glad your daughter is OK. Tell me - do you think it makes sense that another woman's daughter, who was conceived on the same night as your daughter but born at full term, isn't fit to attend K but your DD is?

I'm the PP on this, and I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. Here's an attempt to answer. 34-35 weeks is technically premie, and she spent extra time sleeping her first few weeks. But after she wa six months old, we were not mentally age adjusting for anything, and she met her milestones. So, when she was 5, it would have never crossed my mind to age adjust for K or to use her premie status As a favor in decision making.

OP here, and again, I'm glad your daughter is OK. The point I was trying to make is this: if the timing aligned right, your daughter met the cut-off date to start kindergarten owing to nothing else but being born six weeks ahead of her due date. You indicated that she is doing well in school and you are happy with her progress so it was right for her to start attending school when she did. Yet if she had been born six weeks later - on her due date - she would have missed the cut-off, and would have had to start a year later. And presumably, the same posters would have told you that you are crazy to contemplate starting her a year earlier. Yet she is the same child - being born six weeks premature didn't add a full year of maturity to her brain or made her more fit to attend school than her peers born six weeks later. Do you understand now why it seems so ironic to me that children born premature may be deemed "mature" enough to start school, while their peers born on time, a few weeks later, would be "too young"?

My DD is the age she is. She doesn't get her drivers license or social security or anything else age based at a different time because she was premie. Same with schooling. And she was at age norm well before she turned 1, so there is no reason she should.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
DD was born at just over 34 weeks, and came home with me. No one ever suggested there was brain risk involved (they did try hard to keep from coming until lung maturity). I have certainly have never thought it a Miracle that she was developmentally normal and even (gasp!) became an extremely bright AAP student.

I am glad your daughter is OK. Tell me - do you think it makes sense that another woman's daughter, who was conceived on the same night as your daughter but born at full term, isn't fit to attend K but your DD is?

I'm the PP on this, and I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. Here's an attempt to answer. 34-35 weeks is technically premie, and she spent extra time sleeping her first few weeks. But after she wa six months old, we were not mentally age adjusting for anything, and she met her milestones. So, when she was 5, it would have never crossed my mind to age adjust for K or to use her premie status As a favor in decision making.

OP here, and again, I'm glad your daughter is OK. The point I was trying to make is this: if the timing aligned right, your daughter met the cut-off date to start kindergarten owing to nothing else but being born six weeks ahead of her due date. You indicated that she is doing well in school and you are happy with her progress so it was right for her to start attending school when she did. Yet if she had been born six weeks later - on her due date - she would have missed the cut-off, and would have had to start a year later. And presumably, the same posters would have told you that you are crazy to contemplate starting her a year earlier. Yet she is the same child - being born six weeks premature didn't add a full year of maturity to her brain or made her more fit to attend school than her peers born six weeks later. Do you understand now why it seems so ironic to me that children born premature may be deemed "mature" enough to start school, while their peers born on time, a few weeks later, would be "too young"?

My DD is the age she is. She doesn't get her drivers license or social security or anything else age based at a different time because she was premie. Same with schooling. And she was at age norm well before she turned 1, so there is no reason she should.

No one is questioning that. I just want you to recognize that it was nothing but the birth date lottery, plainly speaking, dumb luck, that made her eligible to start K. It wasn't because she is magically a full year more mature and better prepared to start schooling than the kids born six weeks later. If she'd been born on time, you wouldn't have been able to enroll her. So, do you think being born on time would have magically made her LESS mature and prepared to attend K on the same date?

[Anonymous]

PS: They don't make you wait a whole another year to get your driver's license - there's no cut-off date you have to meet. Bad comparison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm sure this would make a difference to some degree, and I don't know how things would have worked out if he was 6 months older obviously. I will say that, in general, (and your DC could be different) boys are much less emotionally mature than girls, and it can help them a lot to give them the benefit of time for reasons that have nothing to do with intelligence or academics. But mostly, I though it was interesting to hear the perspective of a bright, academically advanced kid. I'm not sure I would have immediately though of middle school transition as an issue, but he is very right.

I would talk to the principal and really listen to what s/he advises. In affluent FCPS schools, they see tons of bright, academically advanced kids, and they have no incentive to place your kid in K if it's a bad fit. And ask them about how they would handle an advanced reader. It might surprise you how well equipped schools in this area are to deal with this (although I'm sure some schools don't do as well). But as PP said, this is why all K classes have IAs-- to differentiate instruction.

Well, as I said, I have no interest in pushing him to first grade if he isn't ready emotionally or in other ways. If schools are equipped to keep him engaged, that's good to hear. I am sure there will be other good readers in his class. We'll have to wait and see.

[Anonymous]

PS: For those who think I'm advocating for the conception date to determine school eligibility - I don't know where you're getting it, I said nothing of the sort. You've made that up.

All I am asking you to do is recognize the irony of the situation where kids who met the age cut-off by virtue of nothing but being born a few weeks premature are considered good and ready to start schooling, but their peers born full-term and thus after the cut-off date aren't, and it's "don't you dare steal a year of childhood and put an immature child where he doesn't belong!". These children are identical in every sense (all things being equal). Yet one is ready and the other isn't?

Of course, the cut-off has to be made *somewhere*. But it's still damn ironic.

[Anonymous]

Its not ironic.

[Anonymous]

So OP, you are advocating a system where the parents decide when to enroll a child in K, with no cutoffs or dates? So a 7 year old late bloomer and a 3 year old reader would start K together? I'm just trying to figure out what system you think would be better.

[Anonymous]

Its as ironic as rain on your wedding day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm sure this would make a difference to some degree, and I don't know how things would have worked out if he was 6 months older obviously. I will say that, in general, (and your DC could be different) boys are much less emotionally mature than girls, and it can help them a lot to give them the benefit of time for reasons that have nothing to do with intelligence or academics. But mostly, I though it was interesting to hear the perspective of a bright, academically advanced kid. I'm not sure I would have immediately though of middle school transition as an issue, but he is very right.

I would talk to the principal and really listen to what s/he advises. In affluent FCPS schools, they see tons of bright, academically advanced kids, and they have no incentive to place your kid in K if it's a bad fit. And ask them about how they would handle an advanced reader. It might surprise you how well equipped schools in this area are to deal with this (although I'm sure some schools don't do as well). But as PP said, this is why all K classes have IAs-- to differentiate instruction.

Well, as I said, I have no interest in pushing him to first grade if he isn't ready emotionally or in other ways. If schools are equipped to keep him engaged, that's good to hear. I am sure there will be other good readers in his class. We'll have to wait and see.

but you are pushing him into a K program when he isn't old enough for K. Why not find a nice preschool class for 4 year olds, like almost every other child his age in Fairfax?