My son's kindergarten class has several 7 yr olds in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't say problems, but concerns. I don't understand why it happens. If a child was not ready for entrance at their grade the first year, why are they entering that same grade the following year. I do see differences in maturity among these boys. It makes the ones who struggle to sit still as young boys (although Beauvoir a great place, not always sympathetic to) stand out even more. And as a mother of young children, I don't know what if any the repercussions of these age spans will be. Guess we can only keep an eye on the situation.

Thanks. That's helpful. Our summer birthday DS was "ready" the year before he started, and we thought a fair amount about whether to apply to pre-K then. In the end, it was a preference of ours that he start later given what we understood from others at the school was the current age range in classes. As far as I can tell, it's been a good placement for him. We've heard positive feedback from teachers about his relationships within the class, in that he's a good friend, focused, somewhat introverted, and kind. I'm hoping that this isn't causing concerns among other parents and kids.

Too bad for DB, being taught to follow the masses already. OMG!! Can I guess the "current age range in classes" is about 1 to 1.5 years greater than the state regulated guidelines for almost every U.S. school?

What is my point, we cannot make decisions for our children based on what everyone else is doing. Young boys are not the only individuals who have trouble sitting still, many humans do; particularly high ability people, who get bored easily. Ooops, I guess that would be ADHD, huh?

Note: This is not a personal attack, I am just trying to make a point.

Actually, saying "too bad for DB" is a personal attack, despite your claiming otherwise. Our son is just fine. Actually, doing very well, socially and academically. We are not "following the masses." The most important thing to us was that he attend a school that was (and still is) our top choice by far. The age ranges at the school tilted toward redshirting and we didn't have strong feelings about his placement either way. We researched (through searching the literature as well as talking with our DS' preschool director, our pediatrician (and one pediatrician who is a friend), friends (including a high school principal highly in favor of redshirting summer boys given the current expectations) and parents at our DS' school). That was the "thinking a fair amount" I mentioned (and you ignored) in my post. In the end, it seemed to be pretty much a wash between positives and negatives, so what tilted us one direction was the age ranges in the class, as we believed that would set the expectations for the kids to some extent. Maybe you have a different approach with your kids. Sorry, your "poor kids" as you would say. OMG!! Imagine being raised by such a snippy parent who would appear to tend toward exaggeration/intentional omissions.

[Anonymous]

This is the issue where parents' competitive streak comes out. Nuance gets lost. Individual decision making gets lost. Common respect for the choices of other parents gets lost.

There was a child in DS' K who was a full year older than DS. They are now in high school, still together and it still makes not one bit of an issue.

All of you need to read Lessons of a Skinned Knee. This is really, truly not a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Then why do it, if it does not make a difference. Go on time.

[Anonymous]

I still do not understand why someone would have a problem with their childs class having an older child. One year older is no big deal. Even 14 or 15 months does not make much of a difference.
If you think your child is in danger in the class, then talk to the teachers, or even better, call the police.
As for 21 year olds starting college and your 17 y old being the youngest... that happens. Some people work for a while and then go to college. I had a 26 year old in my freshman class. She was a qualified nurse who wanted to go back to school to study something different. She was real nice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Take a look at the peer-reviewed research, which unanimously concludes holding kids back is harmful to them!

Could you share some citations? I've read articles that show that having a kid with a learning issue repeat a grade rather than getting targeted intervention does not help them catch up. And I've read research showing that grade-repeats for kids who are just slower academically, without giving them intervention, doesn't help academically and may continue to behavior problems as their frustration grows, but I haven't found a large body of research saying that delaying entry by a year is either helpful or harmful - the few studies I've found have seen mixed or neutral effects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Then why do it, if it does not make a difference. Go on time.

Because for some kids it does make a difference, and for them "on time" means waiting. Just because your child was ready at a certain time, you have no way of knowing about another child. Again, why do you care unless its this competitive feeling that someone is getting away with something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the issue where parents' competitive streak comes out. Nuance gets lost. Individual decision making gets lost. Common respect for the choices of other parents gets lost.

There was a child in DS' K who was a full year older than DS. They are now in high school, still together and it still makes not one bit of an issue.

All of you need to read Lessons of a Skinned Knee. This is really, truly not a big deal.

This. And let me add the parents' paranoia about whether their child is somehow at a competitive disadvatage also comes out. I posted before and I explained that we had our DS repeat pre-K because all of us (including his teachers) said that he was not ready academically or socially (he has some medical issues, including developmental delays). Someone responded that they believed that is was ok to hold the child back for bona fide issues. I responded people here were not making that distinction - they were lumping all redshirts together.

Bottom line is this. Parents SHOULD do what they feel is best for children. If they legitimately feel that their kid would struggle, why should they set the kid up to fail by starting on time? I could not care less if my son is at the top of the class, I just want him where he is supposed to be developmentally. Given his unique circumstances, I just wanted a level playing field. Many of you are blessed that you have perfect, intelligent little angels who are ready on time But my kid is equally as valuable (and intelligent). He is not "slow" (as some other jacka$$ poster said), he just developed more slowly because of his medical issues. He is in 7th grade now and you would not know he was 15 months older than the youngest of his classmates (and you would not have known it in 1st grade either). I am going to do what is best for my child and anyone who does not like it can do you know what. I will admit that people who do it strictly for the competitive advantage are gaming the system. Honestly though, the people here who talk about they do not want redshirting because they want little Suzie to be the top of her age-level class are just the opposite side of the same doggone coin. You are just as competitive as the the other folks.

As far as schools that "recommend" it. The answer is simple. Find a school that does not do it. The issue is that the schools have to market their juiced up curriculums (especially in this area) because the ultra Type A parents in this area demand it. Well you know what? Not all perefectly capable 5 YOs are ready for that juiced up curriculum and the schools realize it. Folks, the "older" class that schools are encouraging is driven by curriculum and nothing else.

[Anonymous]

Wow. In reading some of these comments, I am amazed at the persepctive some people have.

Because if my 5YO is so intelligent and bright, I would want that 5YO challenged - even if DC had to be in a class with older kids. I would not want my 5YO in a class with other 5YO who were not "ready" for K - but were in her class just because they were 5YO. Who do you think is going to require more attention from the teacher? That's just odd that folks would want to enforce some aribitray age requirement when, at the end of the day, it may be intefering with their kid's learning experience.

My DS was in 1st grade and reading at a 3rd grade level. The teacher approached us about putting him in 2nd grade reading. She told us that he would not be at the top of the 2nd grade reading class but that he would be challenged more than he was in the 1st grade class. Because he was ahead of most of the kids in 1st grade, he was bored during reading and did not get much out of it. She felt that being at higher grade and with kids a year older would challenge and stimulate him. It did.

[Anonymous]

The irony is I can't think of a parent or child making a fuss about older or younger children in their classrooms amounting to much in life. I can't think of one individual! Can you? Empty barrels make the most noise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The irony is I can't think of a parent or child making a fuss about older or younger children in their classrooms amounting to much in life. I can't think of one individual! Can you? Empty barrels make the most noise.

By "younger children," do you mean kids who actually start school "on time"? If so, then well then it's quite obvious why there shouldn't be a fuss. They are following stated school policy.

If you mean kids who advance a grade, the reason why you don't hear a fuss is because many parents with academically advanced children don't feel the need to change their children's grade level from the norm. They supplement or make accommodations (e.g., going to reading class with the grade above).

I think that most parents of "on time" kids, like my summer-birthday DS, don't mind having a kid who is older if the TEACHERS (not the parents, all too many of whom have ulterior motives) and other experts feel that a particular child is developmentally delayed and needs that extra year. But when parents claim that they just "feel" that their kids need the "gift of time," please, that is not a strong enough justification to disrupt the social dynamic and educational curriculum of the class.

[Anonymous]

Children can be not ready but not developmentally delayed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Children can be not ready but not developmentally delayed.

Explain? A normally developed child will catch up to his peers, presumably, otherwise he is delayed.

[Anonymous]

The child is ready only when the parents decide the kid is ready?

[Anonymous]

There are school readiness tests.
Has nobody really ever not heard of them? They do not test intelligence, test is on school readiness. I am not sure how these have changed, but with my younger brother back in the day he had to be able to touch his right ear with his left hand so that the hand went over his head.. some kids are not able to do this.
Test is about emotional maturity and ability to be in a group and follow directions etc

[Anonymous]

as a parent of a child held back b/c of maturity and social/emotional readiness issues (having nothing to do with intelligence) this entire thread is really bothersome to me. It's nice to know that I need to be armed at all times if parents find out my DC is a year older b/c I feel like I will get shunned or lambasted. YOU DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO FOR YOUR CHILD, TO ENSURE THEY ARE SUCCESSFUL IN SCHOOL (and no I do not mean athletically successful, I mean academically). If they are not ready at 5 then it's really not a good idea to start them. Why would you set your child up for failure.

I honestly do not see what the difference is if a child is held back a year or if one goes in early. As long as they can manage and be successful then it was the right decision. Does it matter if they go to college at 17 or 19--NO it doesn't.