K or not to K

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can pay the full tuition, many schools wouldn't mention holding a summer birthday boy back.

How would they know this at an interview, before one has even submitted an application?

None of the schools I applied to would even schedule and interview until they had your completed application in hand.

All the schools we applied to had January application due dates, and interviews were scheduled before then.

[Anonymous]

Back to the K or not K... it's time that we as parents accept that the age "calendar" for grade level has changed or will change in a few years. It's sort of like dress size. The "new" size 4 = "old" size 6. Meaning the work level in Kindergarten is what used to be expected in first graders - hence, you have to be the right size. Meaning - now there is definitely a leaning towards older children in Kindergarten because the work is more demanding.

Point: We as parents have to let go of what age we were when we entered Kindergarten because the expectations were different when we were in Kindergarten than the present curriculum. I personally wonder "if no child left behind" somehow caused this age weighting issue... but is for real and it's time for us to stop hanging on to what we think is "Kindergarten ready."

[Anonymous]

Yes, they used to not teach reading until first grade. Now they teach it in kindergarten. But many kids 30 years ago were ready to learn reading (or had already started reading) at age 5, just like they are now. The fact that they had to wait until six 30 years ago despite their readiness doesn't justify making 'em wait now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, they used to not teach reading until first grade. Now they teach it in kindergarten. But many kids 30 years ago were ready to learn reading (or had already started reading) at age 5, just like they are now. The fact that they had to wait until six 30 years ago despite their readiness doesn't justify making 'em wait now.

PP 23:02 here. I actually learned to read at one of the schools that seems to cause a lot of heat on this thread (so I will not name it - as I don't want to become the debate nor do I want to take ANYTHING away from other schools equally deserving) 30 years ago in Kindergarten. And back then although reading was not required in Kindergarten, the school absolutely had a reading program called "phono-visual" for those who were ready. There were at least 6 out of 18 in my class of us were reading by the end of the year (probably more -but I remember 6). The rest weren't there yet... and I might add the non-readers ended up being some of the brightest in our class (looking down the road in performance - and they were never behind always stood out - just not reading yet. As I said, looking back at the non-readers (as a reader I was aware of this)... having nothing to do with intelligence - as I know that many of them went on to Ivies and even more distinguished careers. It is impossible to distinguish between the two. Who knows what would have happened if we all had been pressured. Also, who knows what would have happened to these exceptionally bright kids who were for whatever reason not ready to read - and that was a requirement of our curriculum... maybe they would have fallen off instead of going to Yale and Stanford.