holding boys back?

[Anonymous]

5:49 is not the 11:31 poster, I am. No, I did not post the 15:43 agreeing with the post. Oddly, 5:49 and I have different viewpoints.

Classroom dynamics are driven as much if not more by the students and their parents as the teachers. I'm sorry that some parents don't realize this. It truly doesn't matter whether a "normal" child was held back an extra year because the parent was inappropriately guided by a school system , over zealous protectionist perspective, just wanting to do this best or aggressive need to compete. An 18 month or more age spread along normal development curves is going to change the fundamental make up and outcome of the oter students in the class.

I understand that 20-30 years ago the reverse was true. Parents wanted their children to "skip" a grade or start early for a variety of reasons, status, recognized intelligence (perceived intelligence), better to get ahead etc. Satying back a year or starting late carried a stigma. The schools instituted more rigid cut off dates and parents faced more difficulty moving their child up early. I suspect if the red shirting trend continues, the reverse will simply happen and more rigid "hold back" dates will be enacted.

[Anonymous]

Sorry PP - you're right - I looked quickly at the time stamps and thought someone was referring to my post. Now I've made this thing even more confusing than before... very sorry!

[Anonymous]

I am poster 15:43. And no, I am not the same poster as 11:31. I feel that parents SHOULD do what they feel is best for their child, and those parents that red-shirt clearly are doing what they feel is best for their child. However, what I find unfortunate in all of this, is that in cases where there are no developmental delays, the literature on the subject very clearly demonstrates that there are no advantages long-term to red-shirting on the basis of youngness alone (see Graue & Diperna, 2000; May et al, 1995; etc). Even in cases where short-term advantages have been demonstrated in SOME studies, (ie: advantages in learning to read) they disappear by the 3rd grade. So while these parents are clearly motivated to do what they believe to be best for their child, I do wonder if they are aware of the literature on the subject. And if so, would they still make the same choice. Perhaps so, and in truth, while I would not make the decision to red-shirt based on youngness alone, and do feel that it can create burdens in the classroom, I do feel that at the end of the day, this is their decision to make.

Another point of interest, the literature also suggests that boys are being "incorrectly" red-shirted in cases where there are delays or emotional issues that cannot or should not be solved by just being given an extra year of school to mature. We are actually disadvantaging those boys by holding them out as a perceived means of solving their "issues" as opposed to designing a treatment plan for them that is beyond just giving them an extra year to mature.

[Anonymous]

PP 18:40, I both agree and disagree with you:

while I would not make the decision to red-shirt based on youngness alone, and do feel that it can create burdens in the classroom, I do feel that at the end of the day, this is their decision to make.

I don't believe that it should be their decision to make in a public school system. Yes, there is a big difference in abilities when there is an 18-month age spread--teachers already have a hard time teaching to varying levels in a given class. If there is no developmental delay, then redshirting is NOT warranted and should not be allowed in public schools (private schools can go ahead and do whatever they like). A school system is structured into age groups, albeit imperfectly, but some structure must remain the norm if it is going to work. If there is no developmental delay, there is no reason to think that a 5.5yo can't hack KG. If there is no redshirting for non-delayed children, they will fit into the normal spectrum for that age, which KG is structured to address.

Another point of interest, the literature also suggests that boys are being "incorrectly" red-shirted in cases where there are delays or emotional issues that cannot or should not be solved by just being given an extra year of school to mature. We are actually disadvantaging those boys by holding them out as a perceived means of solving their "issues" as opposed to designing a treatment plan for them that is beyond just giving them an extra year to mature.

This I do agree with. There needs to be better programs in place to support those with non-delay issues - parents should spend their time trying to address any such issues directly rather than promoting red-shirting which does not really slove anything for the child.

Frankly, even if my child had a development delay, I would prefer to put him/her in school with the right age-cohorts and take advantage of the many special ed and other support programs to mainstream them as quickly as possible. Again, redshirting is not a solution, just a bandaid that does not address the fundamental issues.

[Anonymous]

Some food for thought:

Boys and modern education are not an idyllic match. An indoor-based day and an early emphasis on academics and visual-auditory (as opposed to hands-on) learning ask a lot of a group that arrives at school less mature. In their early years, most boys lag behind girls in developing attentiveness, self-control, and language and fine motor skills.

The relatively recent acceleration of the pre-K and kindergarten curricula has occurred without awareness that the brain develops at different sequences in girls and boys, Dr. Sax says. Music, clay work, finger painting, and physical exercise -- early-ed activities that once helped lively kids acclimate to school -- are vanishing. Few teachers are trained in handling the problems that result.

This was from a recent CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/family/06/17/harder.to.raise/index.html

[Anonymous]

I couldn't agree more with this excerpt from PP. However, this is a curriculum problem to be solved by what and how we introduce boys to the formal learning process. Its not going to be solved by simply holding boys back a year while still not being sensitive to the different ways in which they are hard-wired to learn.

[Anonymous]

The curriculum problem is not one easily solved, as it's not viewed as a problem by those setting the curriculum in schools. And if the teachers aren't trained or given the flexibility to modify the curriculum to accommodate the different ways that boys are hard-wired to learn, then what's the answer? Given the curriculum as it is, for some boys red-shirting does address the maturity concern and the boy-girl developmental lag....even though it's questionable as to whether it's merely a temporary fix during these early years. Perhaps a solution with more longevity is single-sex education, which I fully support and will definitely pursue for my kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The curriculum problem is not one easily solved, as it's not viewed as a problem by those setting the curriculum in schools. And if the teachers aren't trained or given the flexibility to modify the curriculum to accommodate the different ways that boys are hard-wired to learn, then what's the answer? Given the curriculum as it is, for some boys red-shirting does address the maturity concern and the boy-girl developmental lag....even though it's questionable as to whether it's merely a temporary fix during these early years. Perhaps a solution with more longevity is single-sex education, which I fully support and will definitely pursue for my kids.

SO DOES PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SO DOES PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT.

No need to yell. Of course, it goes without saying that parental involvement is integral to educating children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some food for thought:

Boys and modern education are not an idyllic match. An indoor-based day and an early emphasis on academics and visual-auditory (as opposed to hands-on) learning ask a lot of a group that arrives at school less mature. In their early years, most boys lag behind girls in developing attentiveness, self-control, and language and fine motor skills.

The relatively recent acceleration of the pre-K and kindergarten curricula has occurred without awareness that the brain develops at different sequences in girls and boys, Dr. Sax says. Music, clay work, finger painting, and physical exercise -- early-ed activities that once helped lively kids acclimate to school -- are vanishing. Few teachers are trained in handling the problems that result.

This was from a recent CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/family/06/17/harder.to.raise/index.html

Not to totally go off topic, but there was a recent article in the Washingtonpost about single-sex classrooms in public schools. In theory - this could address some of the learning style differences.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/14/AR2008061401869.html?sub=AR

[Anonymous]

This is a very interesting post
Personal experience. I got held back in school because we were moving. I was 7 when I was in grade 1. then we moved to Singapore. I had to repeat there because of the move, so got held back another year. Then when we moved back to our country I had to be held back because of their system requirement. I was the oldest in class in med school. I agree with one of the PP, that holding back never harms anyone. I never felt old, I never had any issues with this. I was a little more mature than others and handled my priorities well, that is not to say that the younger ppl didn't. The point is that I don't think age matters, it is the readiness.
We are holding our son back, simply because of the age cut off. He would have started Kindergarten here in LA, and I am sure if I tried I could find a private school that would take him, but we decided not to. He will repeat Pre-K and start Kintergarten next year.

[Anonymous]

This is great. I can't wait to take Bubba to the cleaners if he touches my normal size child.

[Anonymous]

I really do not think it matters right now at age 5 or 6. It is the long term that matters. I held my daughter back, she has late sept birthday and cut off was sept 30. So glad I did. She is well adjusted and not the oldest either, just very close to the oldest. I read a book called "Queen bees and wantabees. It really helped me make up my mind. I do not want her to be the youngest when it really counts to her, middle and high school. I know the op asked about boys, but I think it doesn't matter which gender in the long run. JMO

[Anonymous]

Most parents holding boys back are NOT doing it for kindergarten or first grade. It is done so the child will have an advantage throughout high school- larger, more mature, more developed for sports, leadership, possibly better at academics. It's not a short term endeavor. Some actually turn 15 during the 8th grade. Learners permit while in grade 8 in some states. Boys that look like men in grade 8 and 9.

Some parents will do a grade repeat when changing schools at certain points. That might even be done with average to large size boys doing fine academically. The parents see a better chance of starter in sports. It is not done for academics except in highly unusual instances like doing poorly in grade 9 and repeating it elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

meant to write it is not done for academics in k and grade 1. These parents are looking towards high school. Public school state athletic oversight organizations have age cut-offs.