holding boys back?

[Anonymous]

00:32. Was that the Maret school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I take it that all the posters today and yesterday have not yet tried applying their summer birthday boys to private schools yet. When you call the schools in the fall and if you ask, they will "counsel" you to wait a year if you were planning to apply for preK. If you were planning to apply to K, they will leave the choice of whether to apply to K or prek to you, but their message/suggestion that you wait a year is very clear.

Any private school that "counseled" me to hold back my son before even meeting him would not be a school worth investigating.

Agree, these schools aren't worth it. They are cherry picking with age and IQ. You'd think they would have even better outcomes. The reason that they want the older kids is simply that they are lazy and want the easy route. They should step up to the plate like the private schools and have to deal with all comers. Yes, 7 year old kindergarteners are easier, but their job is to teach 5 year old kindergarteners.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, I meant "step up to the plate like public schools"

[Anonymous]

That's it! All of D.C.'s best private schools are lazy. Why didn't I think of that before?

It couldn't possibly be that these schools are paying attention to the most recent research on the topic, which has been well-cited about 75 - 90 posts back on this same thread.

In the large city I just moved from, the most competitive private schools operate the same way (unofficial or even official June 1 cut-off). They must be lazy, too! I bet if we check the websites for NYC's best schools cut-off dates, we'll find they're also lazy!

[Anonymous]

I don't like having my kid's curriculum watered down to accomodate the 16 month age range in the class he's in.

That makes it sound as though you're one of the parents who red-shirted. Parents who choose to hold their kids back (and that includes choosing a school that won't let a kid begin kindergarten at 5) don't have the right to complain that the curriculum isn't challenging enough for their six-year-old. Kindergarten is supposed to be for five-year-olds.

I admit that I don't know any kids who were held back who are now excelling -- most of them are mediocre students with bullying impulses, and I don't know that starting them sooner would have helped. But the impulse to hold them back seems often to come from an urge to have their kid at the top of the heap, at the same time that parents are all convinced their kids are genuises. "He's very advanced! It's just that his advancement is delayed by a year!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't like having my kid's curriculum watered down to accomodate the 16 month age range in the class he's in.

That makes it sound as though you're one of the parents who red-shirted. Parents who choose to hold their kids back (and that includes choosing a school that won't let a kid begin kindergarten at 5) don't have the right to complain that the curriculum isn't challenging enough for their six-year-old. Kindergarten is supposed to be for five-year-olds.

I admit that I don't know any kids who were held back who are now excelling -- most of them are mediocre students with bullying impulses, and I don't know that starting them sooner would have helped. But the impulse to hold them back seems often to come from an urge to have their kid at the top of the heap, at the same time that parents are all convinced their kids are genuises. "He's very advanced! It's just that his advancement is delayed by a year!"

Parents who choose to send their child to kindergarten "on time" don't have a right to complain about [fill in the blank]. Do whatever you think is best for your child, and assume that other parents are doing the same. You have no idea what circumstances led to redshirting of every individual child. As you are not privy to those discussions and as you are not the parent of those children (and therefore are not responsibile for or given a say in rearing those children) save your judgment and criticism for some other topic.

[Anonymous]

I disagree. Having children 12-16 months older is simply inapprpriate any any level of discussion.

Academically
Physically
Socially


There is nothing about this that makes sense. If the private schools are condoning or encouraging it, then perhaps one ought to consider how those schools are gaming the situation to "their" benefit. What lessons does that teach the kids, both redshirted and not?

Sure, kids on the fringes of the "cut-off" dates should have some discretion, but where does the madness stop?

[Anonymous]

I disagree. Having children 12-16 months older is simply inapprpriate any any level of discussion.

I'm generally in favor of having kids start on time, but I think there can be times when having them wait a year makes sense. Some kids just aren't developmentally ready for kindergarten at five. If you have a kid who is in some sort of therapy (say, speech or OT), the extra year may allow her or him to develop the skills s/he needs to function comfortably (not excel, because it's freakin' kindy -- what's with this "excelling" BS?) at school.

But parents who keep their kids back for a year and then complain that the pace is too slow are parents who chose to inflict boredom on their children. Don't blame the school. Don't blame the parents who sent their kids on what is, after all, the correct schedule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Sure, kids on the fringes of the "cut-off" dates should have some discretion, but where does the madness stop?

Thanks for defining what the "rules" should be. Where did you get your doctorate? What field -- child psychology, education? Just how long have you been an expert on the appropriateness of redshirting? Oh, right. You just have a doctorate in judging other parents' decision-making.

[Anonymous]

I have a boy with a spring birthday which means he'll probably be on the younger side of his class, if the redshirting trends are to be believed. I have no plans to hold him back a year, and I totally recognize all the problems that may come with this trend, especially if it's more about the parents' own issues/preferences than about the child's developmental needs.

On the other hand, I know from personal experience that it's sometimes the right thing to do.... my brother repeated K a million years ago, and since he was a New Year's baby in a system where cutoff dates were on the calendar year he was almost 2 years older than the very youngest child in the class. He was socially and academically way behind his classmates, but my parents were discouraged from holding him back for fear that he would be teased or somehow stand out from his peers, but in the end none of that really mattered. It never was an issue, presumably in part because he never appeared any older than his classmates (still looks much younger than his mid-30s) and because he was by nature very non-aggressive. Holding him back didn't make him the star pupil, but he did just fine and excelled when he got to college. He is the most well-adjusted of any of us siblings and remains close friends with all the guys he grew up with. Maybe he would have turned out just the same had he stayed with his original class, but I can't criticize parents who make the same hard choices that my parents did. If you truly believe that starting with his age group is going to be a debilitating struggle for your son, then you should do what you have to do. Hopefully we all have happy kids in the end!

[Anonymous]

My boy was not redshirted because he was fortunate to have a November birthday and so is just "naturally" one of the older boys in his class. But we would have held him back if the cutoff had been different. He was a late talker and so needed the extra year to develop his verbal skills to a point where he could more comfortably communicate with his peers. He still struggles with this a bit but is doing fine and continues with the help of speech therapy. Aside from his speech, he tests as being very bright, and if I do say so, is a delightful child. Private schools that suggest some children, especially boys, be held back a year are doing you a favor (as long as it is not a blanket requirement), because the alternative is that they would probably not accept a child like mine at all. Which would be a shame for bright children as well as for the school.

[Anonymous]

As a parent of one of the "normal" kids, I am seeing firsthand the effects of a normal child who should simply be in a grade higher than they are. As others have indicated, each child is unique and children have developmental or other issues where this can come into play. However, what I am seeing firsthand, and where I see frustration expressed on this message thread (and others like it nationwide) are where parents are simply gaming the system for some sort of preceived benefit for their child.

I am seeing bored and unchallenged elementary school students;
I am seeing children who are choosing not to participate in activities with "the little kids";
I am seeing exceedingly percocious behviour in junior high school;
I am seeing elementary school kids ask 'why is "such and such" so old, are they stupid'?
I am seeing 8th graders who are eleigible for drivers licenses;
I am seeing "men" in high school.

Basically the reasons why some parents are choosing this for their children are simply backfiring because they children are not being academically challenged and are being socially outcast.

[Anonymous]

I'm seeing whiny parents concerning themselves with other people's children. Children are individuals who develop at varying rates. Just because a child has reached some chronological milestone (age 5) does not automatically mean s/he is ready for kindergarten. Children are not physically on the same growth curve. They don't crawl/walk/talk/read at the same time because they've reached some arbitrary age. Why would anyone expect all 5 year olds to be ready for kindergarten at the same time? I'm sure we can generalize and say what is typical or age-appropriate at various ages. Yes, perhaps most 5 year olds are ready for kindergarten. Most is not all. As with anything, there are exceptions.

[Anonymous]

A good kindergarten should be able to accommodate any five-year-old whose development is within the range of normal. What I'm seeing a lot of parents who will do anything to see that their child is at the top of the heap, and not because that's what's best for the child or the class as a whole.

[Anonymous]

I think most people agree with this. The question is: what is a reasonable exception? It's one thing for children with significant developmental delays or deficits to be held back. I think it's quite another for parents to hold back children primarily because they don't want them to be the youngest or smallest in the class or because they are not as outgoing as some of their peers.