Please give me an honest answer

[Anonymous]

"PP, I must disagree with you. There are STRONG studies showing how boys are late bloomers when it comes to learning, esp. when placed next to their female counterparts."

No this is an oversimplification. Boys have statistical tendencies to develop cognitive spatial skills earlier and fine motor and language skills later. As children grow though these differences even out but our approach to dealing with the early differences can impede children for the rest of their educational experience. The real problem is the increase in class size and lack of teacher education on how to address age appropriate needs. If your goal is to keep 30 kids sitting in their seats practicing writing letters then sure you may have problems but they are bigger than boys acting out in this environment. I feel sorry for good teachers who have to find ways to operate in conditions that are more challenging but our schools are failing our kids if holding them back to achieve "compliance" is their only approach to achieve "learning".

[Anonymous]

Does anyone else think that there is some connection in the mindset that holds back little boys, especially, from starting kindergarten at age five (or pre-k at age 4), and the eventual statistics that we're seeing more and more of, namely, 23 or 24 year olds who are still undergraduates in college?

[Anonymous]

Agree that for boys, and girls, we are talking about a distribution of skills. Perhaps the mean age for different language skills is later for boys as a whole, but not for all boys. When my son was two his day-care provider (yes, we're evil) told us that he was the first kid in her 20 years of teaching ever to pronounce her name correctly.

[Anonymous]

I think cutoff dates are a moving target right now and we chose to hold back our DD because of that. In my younger years the cutoff was December, now most schools (and even DCPS) have officially moved that date to September 1st. Many private schools seem to have unofficial cutoff dates of July 1st.

If your school is telling you to hold your child back it may be that they, too, have unofficially changed their cutoff date. It's best if you go with what the school recommends as they will be the ones educating your child. Just because a child turns a certain age before the school year starts does not mean they are in the "wrong" grade - my August kid will still graduate from high school at age 18 like everyone else.

[Anonymous]

OP: We held back our late-summer birthday DS, and we are glad we did. He's in 5th grade now, two grades ahead in math and doing great overall in a competitive private school. He's smart, but did not have the emotional maturity to handle K when he was 5 (he was 6 when he started, and yes, he's older than many of his friends). I think it totally depends upon your child. Our youngest DS will be barely 5 when he starts kindergarten, and we wouldn't dream of holding him back -- he's ready now, at age 4, and has been for a while. In no way did it harm our eldest DS to be held back for a year before K, and I think it gave him time to catch up to some of his peers. He's still young for his age, and will take a while to catch up. Some kids are like that. However, we are in private school, which is more flexible than public, so take that into consideration if your child is gifted. We would have done it even if we were in public school because its what our DS needed.

[Anonymous]

A couple of counterpoints to consider:

One, how will your son feel when many of the kids he's known from play dates, preschool, play groups, and the neighborhood go to kindergarten and he's left behind? I know a child like this whose entire preschool class went to K, parents held him back, and now at group activities he's the baby who wasn't ready for school. And kids aren't always tactful about this.

Another-- will he get bored? If he's cognitively up to K level but a little immature, are you better off delaying his access to education while he grows up at home, or using school to help him grow up? If you keep him back, will kindergarten bore him then? As the oldest, will he find his peers to be too juvenile?

[Anonymous]

and now at group activities he's the baby who wasn't ready for school. And kids aren't always tactful about this.

It sounds like the adults aren't very tactful about it either.

Why do people make such a big deal of this, particularly, when the schools are the ones making the decision in most cases? Is there a post on DCCollegeMoms site somewhere arguing about whether it's appropriate to let your kid take the "gift of a year" in college and graduate in 5 years instead of 4?

It's pretty clear that private schools decide when and where to place kids. In many public schools, the county screens kids to give recommendations about their readiness. The schools are the ones who have the impartial ability to assess your child. They are the ones who know what the class age range will look like and where your child will fit in. If I were the OP I'd take the school's recommendation and not let the herd of hecklers make me or my child feel ashamed for it. In fact, down the road, if/when the official dates change to June 1st your child will no longer be in the wrong class!

[Anonymous]

We chose to have DS (with a September birthday) as one of the oldest in the K class, rather than the youngest. Ultimately, it came down to knowing our son. He's definitely a late bloomer. His dad and I also took a cue from our own developmental histories -- both of us were late-blooming adolescents -- and thought about whether it was easier to be an underdeveloped 13-year-old in a class of 14-year-olds or to be more in the middle of the pack. His prospective school had recommended keeping him on the older side, too.

On the counter side, DS has always been more comfortable with older kids. His preschool teacher said she wouldn't start him late because "Do you really want your kid to be the first teenaged driver in the class and to be out buying everyone cigarettes?"

We listened and then went with our gut. As a 2nd grader, our son is confident and thriving and seems to be in the right space for him. We're really happy we waited!

Good luck with your decision.

[Anonymous]

There's a really good book that just came out recently called "Outliers: the story of Success" by Malcome Gladwell.

http://www.amazon.com/Outliers-Story-Success-Malcolm-Gladwell/dp/0316017922

He tells the story of Canadian hockey players, who start learning to play very early in life. Apparently by the time the get to the professional leagues, almost all hockey players have Jan, Feb or March birthdays... I.e. there was a December cut-off for each year of team instruction, and the Jan-Mar birthday boys were the ones who were oldest, largest, and most coordinated back when they started instruction -- at age 5. The theory is that while the ability to play hockey is naturally distributed across kids born in all months of the year, that by segregating kids by age each year, some will have a small advantage at age 5 just bu being several months older and more coordinated.

Ind and of it self that is no big deal -- but here is what happens -- the hockey coaches start dividing up the groups early into kids who are ready to work on harder hockey skills, and kids who are just working on the basics. So -- on average -- more of the older hockey playing 5 and 6 year olds end up in the "advanced skills" group -- and this is the kicker... THEY GET BETTER INSTRUCTION. If the younger kids also got great instruction, then they'd progress just as fast. But (again, on average) the bigger, more coordinated kids at the start of each year of hockey practive, get groomed for better instruction... and then the whole thing becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This isn't to say that some kids with August birthdays can't be great at hockey in Canada -- just that fewer of them are.

A friend of mine with many years experience in elementary schools used to tell parents who wondered about holding their summer born boys back a year, said that she had many summer born kids who did just fine. But ALL the kdis who ended up having significant trouble in her 3rd and 4th grade class --- turned out to have had late spring or summer birthdays.

I do wonder if grouping for instruction in the early grades might unfortunately have the same effect on younger kids (esp. boys) as seen in the hockey phenomenon. If reading and writing are stressed highly in kindergarten, and some of those very young summer birthday 5 year olds just aren't ready or interested yet -- that's OK -- as long as when they grow a little more, appropriate, competent instructino is there for them. Unfortunately, in some schools, kids who are behind the other kids get relegated to the "low" reading group, which has "lower" expectations placed upon them. This is somehting I'd look out for, if your child is one of the youngest AND is not as academically advanced as the rest of the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a really good book that just came out recently called "Outliers: the story of Success" by Malcome Gladwell.

http://www.amazon.com/Outliers-Story-Success-Malcolm-Gladwell/dp/0316017922

He tells the story of Canadian hockey players, who start learning to play very early in life. Apparently by the time the get to the professional leagues, almost all hockey players have Jan, Feb or March birthdays... I.e. there was a December cut-off for each year of team instruction, and the Jan-Mar birthday boys were the ones who were oldest, largest, and most coordinated back when they started instruction -- at age 5. The theory is that while the ability to play hockey is naturally distributed across kids born in all months of the year, that by segregating kids by age each year, some will have a small advantage at age 5 just bu being several months older and more coordinated.

Ind and of it self that is no big deal -- but here is what happens -- the hockey coaches start dividing up the groups early into kids who are ready to work on harder hockey skills, and kids who are just working on the basics. So -- on average -- more of the older hockey playing 5 and 6 year olds end up in the "advanced skills" group -- and this is the kicker... THEY GET BETTER INSTRUCTION. If the younger kids also got great instruction, then they'd progress just as fast. But (again, on average) the bigger, more coordinated kids at the start of each year of hockey practive, get groomed for better instruction... and then the whole thing becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This isn't to say that some kids with August birthdays can't be great at hockey in Canada -- just that fewer of them are.

A friend of mine with many years experience in elementary schools used to tell parents who wondered about holding their summer born boys back a year, said that she had many summer born kids who did just fine. But ALL the kdis who ended up having significant trouble in her 3rd and 4th grade class --- turned out to have had late spring or summer birthdays.

I do wonder if grouping for instruction in the early grades might unfortunately have the same effect on younger kids (esp. boys) as seen in the hockey phenomenon. If reading and writing are stressed highly in kindergarten, and some of those very young summer birthday 5 year olds just aren't ready or interested yet -- that's OK -- as long as when they grow a little more, appropriate, competent instructino is there for them. Unfortunately, in some schools, kids who are behind the other kids get relegated to the "low" reading group, which has "lower" expectations placed upon them. This is somehting I'd look out for, if your child is one of the youngest AND is not as academically advanced as the rest of the class.

Fascinating. Do you know, a few months ago I heard on the radio a similar story about baseball players? Apparently there's a disproportionate number of summer birthdays in major league baseball players and it all goes back to when they started school. The boys in the two oldest months (July & August - right before the cut-off date in September) are disproportionately represented at the highest level of the game and in the Hall of Fame.

Same story you're telling but a different sport. Food for thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You might want to move your question to the general schools forum.

I would not broach this topic on the General Discussion forum if I were you. There are some adamant control freaks on the subject of when children should start school. They've made their decision(s) that their sons are starting on the young side and BY GOD they intend to make your decisions too. Come hell or high water there's nothing they'd like more than to take away your right to make your decisions based on the best interest of your child (instead of theirs).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You might want to move your question to the general schools forum.

I would not broach this topic on the General Discussion forum if I were you. There are some adamant control freaks on the subject of when children should start school. They've made their decision(s) that their sons are starting on the young side and BY GOD they intend to make your decisions too. Come hell or high water there's nothing they'd like more than to take away your right to make your decisions based on the best interest of your child (instead of theirs).

You know, I read that whole long thread, and didn't understand the parents' being upset at having older kids in their class (what difference did it make to THEIR kid?" but now in light of having read "Outliers" I can kind of understand their point, not that I agree with how they were expressing it.

But if it turns out that there is a difference of instruction to various groups in elementary school (and kids who are in the "high" group actually get better instruction) then -- unless down the line that changes -- by adding a group of older kids to the top of the group, that in effect bumps the rest of the kids down a notch -- making it just a little bit harder for the kids to stand out, in terms of maturity, coordination, and intellectual ability (at age 5 and 6). That makes it just a bit harder for them to get into the "top" groups and recieve the best instruction. So I can kind of understand why this would bother some parents.

Of course, if schools make sure to provide appropriate, awesome instruction to kids at all levels, none of this would be a concern. Some schools do manage to do this -- and grouping by ability in the early grades is NOT correclated to how kids achieve later on -- but I have seen from personal experience the effect of "tracking" at an early age.

You really do have to be proactive as a school -- and as a parent -- to be sure kids being taught in the "lower" groups do not have fewer expectations for progress places on them, and have ample opportunities to be instructed by the best teachers and with the best methods and materials... and that they will quickly have access to the same curriculum as the kids in the top groups. I.E. they do need to be pushed, somewhat -- otherwise they will be stuck in that low group and never make progress relative to their peers.

Just my opinion.

[Anonymous]

To the PP, it isn't just the instruction, it is the social maturity (or lack thereof), and think about when puberty, or when people can drive etc. It stretches a whole grade in ways that we did not experience (unless you are 17, and then only maybe).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You might want to move your question to the general schools forum.

I would not broach this topic on the General Discussion forum if I were you. There are some adamant control freaks on the subject of when children should start school. They've made their decision(s) that their sons are starting on the young side and BY GOD they intend to make your decisions too. Come hell or high water there's nothing they'd like more than to take away your right to make your decisions based on the best interest of your child (instead of theirs).

You know, I read that whole long thread, and didn't understand the parents' being upset at having older kids in their class (what difference did it make to THEIR kid?" but now in light of having read "Outliers" I can kind of understand their point, not that I agree with how they were expressing it.

But if it turns out that there is a difference of instruction to various groups in elementary school (and kids who are in the "high" group actually get better instruction) then -- unless down the line that changes -- by adding a group of older kids to the top of the group, that in effect bumps the rest of the kids down a notch -- making it just a little bit harder for the kids to stand out, in terms of maturity, coordination, and intellectual ability (at age 5 and 6). That makes it just a bit harder for them to get into the "top" groups and recieve the best instruction. So I can kind of understand why this would bother some parents.

Of course, if schools make sure to provide appropriate, awesome instruction to kids at all levels, none of this would be a concern. Some schools do manage to do this -- and grouping by ability in the early grades is NOT correclated to how kids achieve later on -- but I have seen from personal experience the effect of "tracking" at an early age.

You really do have to be proactive as a school -- and as a parent -- to be sure kids being taught in the "lower" groups do not have fewer expectations for progress places on them, and have ample opportunities to be instructed by the best teachers and with the best methods and materials... and that they will quickly have access to the same curriculum as the kids in the top groups. I.E. they do need to be pushed, somewhat -- otherwise they will be stuck in that low group and never make progress relative to their peers.

Just my opinion.

The thing is, they can have a point and the choice can still be none of their business. If you have a child with a summer birthday, then maybe academic red-shirting is the difference between your child being at the top or the bottom of his class. If your child is a little on the socially immature side, then this may be a no-brainer for you. The control freaks would put forward the argument "well somebody has to be the youngest, somebody has to come in last." My point is "okay fine - lead by example. Let's start with YOUR child coming in last then." Because, as I understand my job as a parent, it is to try to make sure it isn't consistently MY child who's in the worst position. In fact, I owe it to my child to improve his odds of success. If you want to hold your child back too? More power to you. Just don't get in my way and try to control MY choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The thing is, they can have a point and the choice can still be none of their business. If you have a child with a summer birthday, then maybe academic red-shirting is the difference between your child being at the top or the bottom of his class. If your child is a little on the socially immature side, then this may be a no-brainer for you. The control freaks would put forward the argument "well somebody has to be the youngest, somebody has to come in last." My point is "okay fine - lead by example. Let's start with YOUR child coming in last then." Because, as I understand my job as a parent, it is to try to make sure it isn't consistently MY child who's in the worst position. In fact, I owe it to my child to improve his odds of success. If you want to hold your child back too? More power to you. Just don't get in my way and try to control MY choices.

Yeah, OK.

Look -- I read that thread in its entirety, and TRUST ME, you made that point perfectly clear.

It's just that I personally didn't understand why YOUR choice for YOUR CHILD could be seen as affecting someone ELSE's child. Because I was just seeing children basically interacting with the curriculum. If they were't ready to access the curriculum, as being offered, then it made sense for them to be held back a year.

But I hadn't been thinking that there could in fact be a material disadvantage to OTEHR kids in the class, by having your older child enter. So I didn't understand why other parents even cared. I dind't even understand where this sens of kids competing against each other (in first grade) was coming from.

Now, I understand where they were coming from. Essentially, resources (good instruction, being at at the top of the class) are limited. People who care, want their child to have the best resources. That's where the competition is coming from. Now, I get it! I just didn't understand what the rationale for even caring was about.