Oldest kids in class do better, even through college - NPR

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How is K not developmentally appropriate? It is school, where they are supposed to be learning. It is not preschool and playtime.

It could be more play based learning rather than standard based etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If schools don't want parents to redshirt, they need to tone down the early elementary years. Otherwise, we will continue to have kids who turn 7 in kindergarten.

+1

Kindergarten needs to be developmentally appropriate for five year olds.

And 4 year olds of the cut off is going to include them (and it does in at least 16 states and D.C.).

Exactly. My DS was going to be 5 years + 5 days on the first day of school if we sent him on time and I didn't want him sitting in school focused on academics for 6 hours with just two short recesses. It's not age appropriate. So another year of play-based preschool before sending him a year later.

I don't care if he's the youngest or oldest - just that it's a good environment for him.

[Anonymous]

Many argue that it's the people who redshirt (generally wealthy and generally have had kids in daycares or preschools for YEARS) are who is driving this idea that K is so "hard".... they have to make it age appropriate for your 7 year old now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many argue that it's the people who redshirt (generally wealthy and generally have had kids in daycares or preschools for YEARS) are who is driving this idea that K is so "hard".... they have to make it age appropriate for your 7 year old now.

It probably happened when they changed K to full-day to accommodate two working parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is K not developmentally appropriate? It is school, where they are supposed to be learning. It is not preschool and playtime.

It could be more play based learning rather than standard based etc.

Why? It is supposed to be about learning the foundation work for upper grades. Preschool is for play. Hold your kid back if they still need play. Or, your preschool didn't prepare your child for learning. We found K-2 painfully slow and not academic enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If schools don't want parents to redshirt, they need to tone down the early elementary years. Otherwise, we will continue to have kids who turn 7 in kindergarten.

+1

Kindergarten needs to be developmentally appropriate for five year olds.

And 4 year olds of the cut off is going to include them (and it does in at least 16 states and D.C.).

Exactly. My DS was going to be 5 years + 5 days on the first day of school if we sent him on time and I didn't want him sitting in school focused on academics for 6 hours with just two short recesses. It's not age appropriate. So another year of play-based preschool before sending him a year later.

I don't care if he's the youngest or oldest - just that it's a good environment for him.

I have a September kid, so he turned 5 that year. How is it not appropriate? Your preschool did not prepare your child. Ours did and the transition was easy. My kid hates recess and would hate 2 or anything longer than it is. They aren't sitting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing I don't get about this as a phenomenon is that the kids eventually figure it out and they start to think of the oldest kids in class as the "dumb" ones because even an 8 year old knows that a 10 year old should be doing high level work.

So yeah your 10 year old might be the best reader in class but the other kids are aware that that kid shouldn't be in their class in the first place. Kids are much cannier than we give them credit for. They're not fooled by this kind of gaming of the system.

Huh. I've never heard such a comment from either of my kids. And if I did, I would talk to them about it.

NP. Don't you remember thinking this when you were a kid about the oldest kids? I do.

My kid said something like this to me recently and I didn't know what to say because I know red shirting is more common now and I don't think it's appropriate. So I said something like "I'm not sure why so and so is older. It's none of our business anyway."

But the truth is, a 10 year should be doing more advanced reading than an 8 year old. That is simply reality. You won't be able to convince kids otherwise no matter what you say.

I know of a summer birthday girl who struggles in school and the parents/teaches are ALWAYs reminding her that she's the youngest. I think she hates that she is the youngest and just wants to be on par with her peers. We redshirted my late September kid because the pressure cooker of kindergarten is just not developmentally appropriate for a 4 year old/ young 5 ( won't be 5.5 until late march). There is nothing wrong with him, but something wrong with the school system and when he asks, I will say this.

This is so unfair that girls need to deal with this when moms of big dumb boys try to give their sons an advantage. When my tiny summer daughter is 11 or 12 will not want those older, big galoots in the same class as her, being their pre-teen gross selves.

Big dumb boys? I understand this is a hot issue for some people, but it is crazy that adults talk about kids this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is K not developmentally appropriate? It is school, where they are supposed to be learning. It is not preschool and playtime.

It could be more play based learning rather than standard based etc.

Why? It is supposed to be about learning the foundation work for upper grades. Preschool is for play. Hold your kid back if they still need play. Or, your preschool didn't prepare your child for learning. We found K-2 painfully slow and not academic enough.

I think you can learn the foundations through play. I'm not really complaining about K now, just saying what some people think about the K curriculum. I would be ok with a more play based curriculum but I did not redshirt because of it.

[Anonymous]

OP, of course kids who are an entire year older than their peers do better, on average, in some areas. A year is a big difference for 5 and 6 year olds, and for older kids, too. This doesn't sound like a ground-breaking study to me.

I will add that one of my kids, a late August boy, runs circles around his peers in most areas, despite being one of the youngest in his class. That is only one anecdote, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is K not developmentally appropriate? It is school, where they are supposed to be learning. It is not preschool and playtime.

It could be more play based learning rather than standard based etc.

Why? It is supposed to be about learning the foundation work for upper grades. Preschool is for play. Hold your kid back if they still need play. Or, your preschool didn't prepare your child for learning. We found K-2 painfully slow and not academic enough.

I think you can learn the foundations through play. I'm not really complaining about K now, just saying what some people think about the K curriculum. I would be ok with a more play based curriculum but I did not redshirt because of it.

+1. Also, it wasn't as academic (require/ a standard that children read by end of Kindergarten) until 10-15 years ago. I think "play" is misunderstood in the context of early childhood. So much research has been done that says children learn best through play and self discovery. Play based learning in K does set the foundation of being engaged in learning as opposed to hating school, like many kids do, because they are completely uninterested and disconnected.. First grade was traditionally when reading and arithmetic instruction stated. Don't hate the players, hate the game.

[Anonymous]

I live in Canada...red shirting doesn't exist here that I know of.

Our cut off is Dec 31 so kids start junior kindergarten at 3 (4 by Dec 31) or 4 and then start senior kindergarten at 4 (turning 5 by Dec 31) or 5.

The kindergarten classes are mixed - junior and senior together so if a child is still acts a little younger going into senior, it isn't all that noticeable. Also it gives the seniors a year of mentoring the juniors which helps the mature and grow up. By the time the seniors go into first grade, they have two years of school under their belt and are ready for it. Both our junior and senior kindergarten are play based and first grade is also mostly active learning...although with more desk work. By 3rd grade most kids have evened out maturity wise and are more developmentally similar so our area won't hold back before third grade unless there is some major extenuating circumstance.

It works great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If schools don't want parents to redshirt, they need to tone down the early elementary years. Otherwise, we will continue to have kids who turn 7 in kindergarten.

+1

Kindergarten needs to be developmentally appropriate for five year olds.

And 4 year olds of the cut off is going to include them (and it does in at least 16 states and D.C.).

Exactly. My DS was going to be 5 years + 5 days on the first day of school if we sent him on time and I didn't want him sitting in school focused on academics for 6 hours with just two short recesses. It's not age appropriate. So another year of play-based preschool before sending him a year later.

I don't care if he's the youngest or oldest - just that it's a good environment for him.

I have a September kid, so he turned 5 that year. How is it not appropriate? Your preschool did not prepare your child. Ours did and the transition was easy. My kid hates recess and would hate 2 or anything longer than it is. They aren't sitting.

When was he in K? There is a lot of sitting these days. And maybe he doesn't like recess because he never learned how to play in preschool. Sounds like he went to a preschool that doesn't understand child development. Poor kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is K not developmentally appropriate? It is school, where they are supposed to be learning. It is not preschool and playtime.

It could be more play based learning rather than standard based etc.

Why? It is supposed to be about learning the foundation work for upper grades. Preschool is for play. Hold your kid back if they still need play. Or, your preschool didn't prepare your child for learning. We found K-2 painfully slow and not academic enough.

I think you can learn the foundations through play. I'm not really complaining about K now, just saying what some people think about the K curriculum. I would be ok with a more play based curriculum but I did not redshirt because of it.

+1. Also, it wasn't as academic (require/ a standard that children read by end of Kindergarten) until 10-15 years ago. I think "play" is misunderstood in the context of early childhood. So much research has been done that says children learn best through play and self discovery. Play based learning in K does set the foundation of being engaged in learning as opposed to hating school, like many kids do, because they are completely uninterested and disconnected.. First grade was traditionally when reading and arithmetic instruction stated. Don't hate the players, hate the game.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Oldest son turned 5 at the end of May & our district cutoff is the end of August. I would never have considered holding him back, but did not know how many of his peers would be a full year older. He was small for his age, which made it worse. With the exception of a couple of boys, he was the youngest boy in his grade all through high school. He did well academically and was even a National Merit Scholar, but he lacked friends and had difficulty competing in sports. He actually enjoys sports a lot and it was hard for him to face so many disappointments in that regard. He's objectively good looking, but did not date in high school and still really doesn't. He had crushes on girls, but he looked so much younger and is only now starting to look more like a man than a boy at age 20.

Fast-forward to college and I can see countless ways where it would be better for him to be among the oldest in his class. He works as a resident assistant in a dorm, and during his sophomore year many of the male resident freshmen on his floor were older than he was!

We had a surprise baby in our mid-40s, born at the end of June. There was no way in the world that kid was going to kindergarten after just turning 5. He is among the oldest in his class in 3rd grade now, but definitely not the oldest. He was really bored in kindergarten but we supplemented at home and I can see countless benefits for him today. We have two other children and they are among the oldest in their grades by virtue of birthday, but after the cut off. It's just easier for them in so many ways.

I honestly think my oldest son's life would be very different, and happier, if his school years had been more socially fulfilling. He definitely wishes he hadn't been the youngest boy in almost any situation. There are worse things in life, but I wish with all my heart I could go back to that day when we decided to send him to K on schedule. I would change that decision for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

When was he in K? There is a lot of sitting these days. And maybe he doesn't like recess because he never learned how to play in preschool. Sounds like he went to a preschool that doesn't understand child development. Poor kid.

Kids go to preschool to learn how to play?