holding boys back?

[Anonymous]

14:03 The point several people are making is that although YOU insist it is irrelevant why you choose to hold your child back, many people (including me -- and I am not a poster in this latest exchange) believe it is VERY relevant because of the effect the trend is having on schools and, therefore, other children. No one is asking you to justify your decision here -- but many believe you should have to justify that decision to someone. And it is entirely because you seem to dismiss others opinions without any further consideration to their point of view that people are calling you self absorbed and obnoxious. Your defenses of "am not" and "I don't care what you think" only serve to prove their point.

I am interested in other points of view, however, so if you have nothing further to add than the rationales you have previously given, then you should probably move on. This thread is obviously frustrating you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:14:03 The point several people are making is that although YOU insist it is irrelevant why you choose to hold your child back, many people (including me -- and I am not a poster in this latest exchange) believe it is VERY relevant because of the effect the trend is having on schools and, therefore, other children. No one is asking you to justify your decision here -- but many believe you should have to justify that decision to someone. And it is entirely because you seem to dismiss others opinions without any further consideration to their point of view that people are calling you self absorbed and obnoxious. Your defenses of "am not" and "I don't care what you think" only serve to prove their point.

I am interested in other points of view, however, so if you have nothing further to add than the rationales you have previously given, then you should probably move on. This thread is obviously frustrating you.

I'm not at all frustrated. I've made the best decision for my child. It does seem that parents who have made the decision to hold their children back are frustrating those that have made a different choice. It's not at all that other people's opinions don't matter. However, it is those other opinions that include no flexibility in parenting that I dismiss. Thanks for your advice/permission to move on. I advise those that seem frustrated with the concept of holding back children to move on as well.

[Anonymous]

Both sides of this argument sound like good candidates for one more shot at kindergarten. What a bunch of immature, self-righteous, busy bodies you are on both sides.

[Anonymous]

So here is a real situation. I have friends who have twins born at 29 weeks. One has had some slight developmental delays and the other just meets milestones in some areas. In a few areas they are actually very advanced. Amazing considering what they went through as babies! They have spring birthdays and their peds and OT told their mom they are ready for kindergarten. However, their mom was also told that because parents are red shirting kids with no developmental delays and this affects the pace of the class, expectations, and time that the teacher can spend with the younger kids they may want to consider holding one or both of them back. To make matters worse, since they are advanced in some areas they may be a little bored staying in pre-K. One twin has no reason to stay back even with red shirting but it would be hard to separate them. A normal K class would engage them both and help them through the areas where they need more help.

So for the people out there who believe it is their decision alone, is no one's business, and their right to do whatever they feel is best for their kid ..forget the rest..... there is an example of who you are harming.

[Anonymous]

Those two kids sound like tough little kids who have made it through much worse than being in a class with a few older kids. If that is the worst "harm" they ever face in this world, they will be very fortunate indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Thank goodness I'm not looking for you to validate who I am versus not. It is irrelevant what you think, and STILL none of your business why I (and others) have held a child back. So I hope the name calling makes you feel better.

Why are you still posting on this topic? it is clear that you are either trying to bait others who wish to discuss it or else move the focus on to you rather than the topic.

Clearly none of us is you, and thank goodness for it. We do not care what your specific situation is or what holier than thou attitidue you wish to bestow on this thread (and probably your child).

Parents on this thread ARE concerned that on average, most people who seem to be red shirting their children are in fact gaming the system at the expense of their children, who are of "normal" or average age.

[Anonymous]

I can't understand the level of hysteria here. I'm not redshirting, and I do see some of the downsides of skewing K classes older, but truly I don't think this warrants such outrage and panic among parents. The end result is that there is approximately an 18 month differential between the oldest kids and the youngest kids in a class... versus a 12 month differential if cutoff dates were strictly enforced. Not such a big deal. In my son's class, there are wide disparities in ability and maturity even among kids very close in age. And all kids in elementary schools are exposed to other grade levels throughout the day. Personally I prefer to have my son (with a spring bday) in class with slightly older kids - he tends to behave better around kids with a bit more maturity!

I understand why some are offended by people who want (and can afford) to keep their kids back simply so that they will be biggest/smartest/whatever, but you need to have a little more confidence in the capacity of kids to handle - and even thrive from - exposure to differences. Otherwise - homeschool or just keep your kids in a bubble till they're ready for the Ivy League.

As for the debate about legalisms, I took the PPs comments to mean that every parent has the right and the obligation to do what is right for their child. Seems totally appropriate to me. If you have problems with the way your child's school is run you need to take that up with the school administrators, not shrieking at anonymous strangers on the internet.

[Anonymous]

Thank you, PP, for a sane viewpoint.

[Anonymous]

Okay, I'm gonna ask this again: somebody tell me why a male, aged 6 yrs 2 mos., is going to get so much more "bored" with K material that he's never encountered before than a boy aged 5 yrs. 5 mos. will get? Or a girl aged 5 yrs. 5 mos.?

What is it about those extra months that purportedly makes slightly older boys so "bored" with learning to read for the first time in their lives that they will certainly "act out"? (multiple PP's words, not mine).

I think this popular argument is a red herring. I suspect but could never prove that the acter-outers would do the same thing whether they began school at age 4, 6 etc., and that the propensity to "act out" is part of the reason why their parents started them later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I'm gonna ask this again: somebody tell me why a male, aged 6 yrs 2 mos., is going to get so much more "bored" with K material that he's never encountered before than a boy aged 5 yrs. 5 mos. will get? Or a girl aged 5 yrs. 5 mos.?

What is it about those extra months that purportedly makes slightly older boys so "bored" with learning to read for the first time in their lives that they will certainly "act out"? (multiple PP's words, not mine).

I think this popular argument is a red herring. I suspect but could never prove that the acter-outers would do the same thing whether they began school at age 4, 6 etc., and that the propensity to "act out" is part of the reason why their parents started them later.

In an attempt to answer the question asked above: In areas where it is very popular to "red-shirt" your children, especially boys, (i.e., no substantial developmental delays, just want them to be the oldest, "a little more prepared," whatever), many of these children have been in preschool programs for at least a couple years. Many will repeat pre-k or kindergarten -- take it at a preschool or public school -- and then apply to private school. (Some go to preschool for two "pre-k" years and then to public K). So the children have seen the same material, but are now seeing again. While someone else's child, who may be at the late end of the age range for the cut-offs, is seeing it for the first time. (We are seeing this issue in pre-school in my neighborhood.)

There is still very rapid development of children (physical and mental) in this age range -- so while 18 months is not as big a deal late on in life, it can make a substantial difference in this time frame. Furthermore, the brain and the body don't just sit still and do nothing other than what they are taught in school. Many of the families holding their children back are enrolling them in all kinds of "enrichment" programs outside of school. They read to them at home. The physical brain development happens and the child's natural curiosity builds. Early childhood education, in particular, is highly researched, and a good school will be using curriculum that have been developed based on long term research -- of children within the age range for whom the class is intended.

[Anonymous]

Hmmm ... so if these pushy parents who redshirt their kids would just stop reading to them and taking them to the museum and orchestra, then the other little kids would have an easier time in kindergarten. Hilarious viewpoint!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hmmm ... so if these pushy parents who redshirt their kids would just stop reading to them and taking them to the museum and orchestra, then the other little kids would have an easier time in kindergarten. Hilarious viewpoint!!!

PP -- That is not what I am saying at all. I mentioned outside activities as a way of answering the previous question as to how these children could possibly be bored if they are seeing the material for the first time. Meaning that even if they are not taking pre-k or K again, they still have probably learned things outside the classroom. Which is a great thing -- I hope parents don't stop. But I find your tone about "the other little kids" in kindergarten concerning -- when those poor other "little kids" are actually the ones age appropriate for kindergarten. All I did was answer the prior person's question. I tried to lay out the situation in my personal experience. And I didn't call anyone "pushy." Thought it was rather tame given the nature of this exchange. If that is hilarious, you have a strange sense of humor IMHO.

[Anonymous]

Wow - this discussion is wild. Whether you hold your kid back or send him to Kindergarten makes no difference at all in the long run. Kids will adapt to the class they're in. 7th grade can be pretty funny, though - because you can definitely see which kids were held back. They're the ones that have grown to be 6 feet tall and are already in puberty. My 7th grade son is really, really short and some of his best friends are giants. I think it will settle out about Sophomore year in high school.

[Anonymous]

Actually it is not funny when your 19 year old boy tries to date my 14 year old girl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actually it is not funny when your 19 year old boy tries to date my 14 year old girl.

Agree. Like I said earlier, that's what lawyers, and court systems are for. I will take action against any 19 year old "high schooler" who dates my underage daughter.