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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You are the only pretender here. Are you in the head of the 7-year-old who is feeling stupid when he realizes how much older he is by third grade? It appears you are also in the head of his peers who will think he is stupid? How do you know how 3rd graders think? "I hear my friends...he said ... she said ... logic". It appears you have identical thoughts to third graders; thus, probably paranoid schizophrenia with hallucinations or someone with a similar budding level of intellectual accomplishment.


.....and stop diagnosing people. Don't be mad. Let's just be honest about all this.

I shall only if you stop speaking for 3rd Graders and their peers. Are you a 3rd Grader? Why do you think the older 3rd grader and peers will all think the older kid is stupid? This is what the parents think and say --- or indoctrinate their children with. Most of these kids only parrot what their parents say in the car pool lane. So much for your multiple master degrees in psychology?

When I was 5 in the first grade, I recall the older children starting to notice we were different ages. By the time we reached third grade, younger children and older children began segregating themselves, based on the fact the older children had lower scores and anwered questions more slowly in class. Without anyone ever saying it, it was clear many of the much older children were not as bright academically and they had some social shortcomings. I remember older children losing interest in school, because they were not being accomodated appropriately, too.

I see it at my daughter's school, too. Kids know who the slower, older children are; and they talk about it. Like it or not, no matter what you teach or preach at home, children have a world and life outside of you.

Realist

[Anonymous]

I am laughing because I can't even get offended by your denial. You and I both KNOW children will be children, and they will tease and torment the other child who is much older.

By the way, I have 2 master's degrees in early child development and a PhD in Psychology, in case you think I am hallucinating!

Peace and honesty from the realist!!

Psychology consultation:

I do not follow your logic. If these older kids are red shirted (when they alledgedly shouldn't be from a developmental standpoint) then an extra year in the world alledgedly makes them more physically and intellectually developed than their younger peers ("the unfair advantage" everyone is worried about)-- primed to be leaders in the classroom and gridiron.

What will be the motive/motivation/gumption for the younger child to tease or bully the older child that is bigger, stronger, smarter and more handsome? Why wouldn't envy and adoration prevail instead?

[Anonymous]

When I was 5 in the first grade, I recall the older children starting to notice we were different ages. By the time we reached third grade, younger children and older children began segregating themselves, based on the fact the older children had lower scores and anwered questions more slowly in class. Without anyone ever saying it, it was clear many of the much older children were not as bright academically and they had some social shortcomings. I remember older children losing interest in school, because they were not being accomodated appropriately, too.

I see it at my daughter's school, too. Kids know who the slower, older children are; and they talk about it. Like it or not, no matter what you teach or preach at home, children have a world and life outside of you.

Realist

Did it occur to you that these kids may have been a little slower developmentally which explains why they started school later or are older than their peers? Just as some of the very young kids in classroooms tend to be more precocious and smarter (explaining why they were advanced, accelerated or plainly were ready to start school earlier)?

Or do you subscribe to the theory that starting school (brick and mortar) at a late age or being older than everyone else makes you dumber in time while the converse, if you are much younger than your peers you become smarter with time? In which case, I'll put my 3-year-old in K so she becomes smart over time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am laughing because I can't even get offended by your denial. You and I both KNOW children will be children, and they will tease and torment the other child who is much older.

By the way, I have 2 master's degrees in early child development and a PhD in Psychology, in case you think I am hallucinating!

Peace and honesty from the realist!!

Psychology consultation:

I do not follow your logic. If these older kids are red shirted (when they alledgedly shouldn't be from a developmental standpoint) then an extra year in the world alledgedly makes them more physically and intellectually developed than their younger peers ("the unfair advantage" everyone is worried about)-- primed to be leaders in the classroom and gridiron.

What will be the motive/motivation/gumption for the younger child to tease or bully the older child that is bigger, stronger, smarter and more handsome? Why wouldn't envy and adoration prevail instead?

I think I need to first let you know where I stand on the redshirting issue, so you will be more informed about my position. First, I am against redshirting, period. I feel all children should start K when they are old enough, unless they have delays, in which case maybe they should be enrolled in a different school where their needs can be more appropriately met. Redshirting does not give a child an academic advantage. I believe it hinders them in the long run, and can have negative social implications.

Also, age and looks are not relevant in this case. Handsome boys/men are handsome and pretty girls/women are pretty, whether they are 2 years older or younger. We all attended school with big jocks, so yes - age will give the children (boys in articular) a physical advantage for sports.

Really smart children that are advanced socially, emotionally, and academically will not usually admire older bigger children who are academically slow. Also, I am not predicting they will bully less smart kids. I simply know that intellect is still considered a positive thing for kids to possess, and those who have it are often able to recognize or make assumptions about others who seem to lack it in school.

Realist

[Anonymous]

When I was 5 in the first grade, I recall the older children starting to notice we were different ages. By the time we reached third grade, younger children and older children began segregating themselves, based on the fact the older children had lower scores and anwered questions more slowly in class. Without anyone ever saying it, it was clear many of the much older children were not as bright academically and they had some social shortcomings. I remember older children losing interest in school, because they were not being accomodated appropriately, too.

I see it at my daughter's school, too. Kids know who the slower, older children are; and they talk about it. Like it or not, no matter what you teach or preach at home, children have a world and life outside of you.

Realist

Realist:

What do you propose should be done with older students in classrooms who are not quite as accomplished as their younger peers?

Expulsion, demotion to a lower grade, hold them back a year or two, teach them, put them in a separate school for old dummies, kick them out of your child's classroom?

On second thought, what if the under-accomplished child is the same age as your child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

When I was 5 in the first grade, I recall the older children starting to notice we were different ages. By the time we reached third grade, younger children and older children began segregating themselves, based on the fact the older children had lower scores and anwered questions more slowly in class. Without anyone ever saying it, it was clear many of the much older children were not as bright academically and they had some social shortcomings. I remember older children losing interest in school, because they were not being accomodated appropriately, too.

I see it at my daughter's school, too. Kids know who the slower, older children are; and they talk about it. Like it or not, no matter what you teach or preach at home, children have a world and life outside of you.

Realist

Did it occur to you that these kids may have been a little slower developmentally which explains why they started school later or are older than their peers? Just as some of the very young kids in classroooms tend to be more precocious and smarter (explaining why they were advanced, accelerated or plainly were ready to start school earlier)?

Or do you subscribe to the theory that starting school (brick and mortar) at a late age or being older than everyone else makes you dumber in time while the converse, if you are much younger than your peers you become smarter with time? In which case, I'll put my 3-year-old in K so she becomes smart over time.

To answer your questions very candidly - yes, yes, and no.

Peace!

[Anonymous]

When I went to school many decades ago, in our classrooms of 20 to 30 students of varying ages there were always dummies and smartie pants. There also ranked us (these rankings were posted) and there was always a #1 and a #30 place student. I could pronounce all the names of my classmates.

Nothing has changed today the classrooms still have students of varying ages with dummies and smartie pants. Some hang out in the upper or lower quartiles. The only notable difference today is that the smartie pants in the highest quartile have last names I can't pronounce.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

When I was 5 in the first grade, I recall the older children starting to notice we were different ages. By the time we reached third grade, younger children and older children began segregating themselves, based on the fact the older children had lower scores and anwered questions more slowly in class. Without anyone ever saying it, it was clear many of the much older children were not as bright academically and they had some social shortcomings. I remember older children losing interest in school, because they were not being accomodated appropriately, too.

I see it at my daughter's school, too. Kids know who the slower, older children are; and they talk about it. Like it or not, no matter what you teach or preach at home, children have a world and life outside of you.

Realist

Realist:

What do you propose should be done with older students in classrooms who are not quite as accomplished as their younger peers?

Expulsion, demotion to a lower grade, hold them back a year or two, teach them, put them in a separate school for old dummies, kick them out of your child's classroom?

On second thought, what if the under-accomplished child is the same age as your child?

No children should be left behind. Those who are advanced should move forward earlier or be placed in special programs. No child should be left behind and no child should be stifled either. It is a fine balance that needs to be addressed, rather than ignored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When I was 5 in the first grade, I recall the older children starting to notice we were different ages. By the time we reached third grade, younger children and older children began segregating themselves, based on the fact the older children had lower scores and anwered questions more slowly in class. Without anyone ever saying it, it was clear many of the much older children were not as bright academically and they had some social shortcomings. I remember older children losing interest in school, because they were not being accomodated appropriately, too.

I see it at my daughter's school, too. Kids know who the slower, older children are; and they talk about it. Like it or not, no matter what you teach or preach at home, children have a world and life outside of you.

Realist

Did it occur to you that these kids may have been a little slower developmentally which explains why they started school later or are older than their peers? Just as some of the very young kids in classroooms tend to be more precocious and smarter (explaining why they were advanced, accelerated or plainly were ready to start school earlier)?

Or do you subscribe to the theory that starting school (brick and mortar) at a late age or being older than everyone else makes you dumber in time while the converse, if you are much younger than your peers you become smarter with time? In which case, I'll put my 3-year-old in K so she becomes smart over time.

To answer your questions very candidly - yes, yes, and no.

Peace!

Two of my closest friends have been pediatricians for decades. Their two warnings to me when I was pregnant was to watch out for educational consultants and people with advanced degrees in childhood development. I understood about the consultants, and I'm beginning yo understand about child development folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When I was 5 in the first grade, I recall the older children starting to notice we were different ages. By the time we reached third grade, younger children and older children began segregating themselves, based on the fact the older children had lower scores and anwered questions more slowly in class. Without anyone ever saying it, it was clear many of the much older children were not as bright academically and they had some social shortcomings. I remember older children losing interest in school, because they were not being accomodated appropriately, too.

I see it at my daughter's school, too. Kids know who the slower, older children are; and they talk about it. Like it or not, no matter what you teach or preach at home, children have a world and life outside of you.

Realist

Did it occur to you that these kids may have been a little slower developmentally which explains why they started school later or are older than their peers? Just as some of the very young kids in classroooms tend to be more precocious and smarter (explaining why they were advanced, accelerated or plainly were ready to start school earlier)?

Or do you subscribe to the theory that starting school (brick and mortar) at a late age or being older than everyone else makes you dumber in time while the converse, if you are much younger than your peers you become smarter with time? In which case, I'll put my 3-year-old in K so she becomes smart over time.

To answer your questions very candidly - yes, yes, and no.

Peace!

Two of my closest friends have been pediatricians for decades. Their two warnings to me when I was pregnant was to watch out for educational consultants and people with advanced degrees in childhood development. I understood about the consultants, and I'm beginning yo understand about child development folks.

All of my friends who are pediatricians and primary school educators recommend redshirting, too. I will continue to disagree with them.

[Anonymous]

I think I need to first let you know where I stand on the redshirting issue, so you will be more informed about my position. First, I am against redshirting, period. I feel all children should start K when they are old enough, unless they have delays, in which case maybe they should be enrolled in a different school where their needs can be more appropriately met. Redshirting does not give a child an academic advantage. I believe it hinders them in the long run, and can have negative social implications.

Also, age and looks are not relevant in this case. Handsome boys/men are handsome and pretty girls/women are pretty, whether they are 2 years older or younger. We all attended school with big jocks, so yes - age will give the children (boys in articular) a physical advantage for sports.

Really smart children that are advanced socially, emotionally, and academically will not usually admire older bigger children who are academically slow. Also, I am not predicting they will bully less smart kids. I simply know that intellect is still considered a positive thing for kids to possess, and those who have it are often able to recognize or make assumptions about others who seem to lack it in school.

Realist

When I went to a swanky NE prep school many decades ago (from a public school) I discovered that many, perhaps upwards of 30 to 40 percent of the students were "red shirted" (whether they came from prestigious day schools in NY or Boston or public schools). They were redshirted despite, in many cases, brilliant academic records in their primary schools. In other words, they could have remained in their home schools and progressed to high school along with their peers. Instead they opted to go boarding school and marinade in a 4-year "small college-like" boarding experience.

I have come to learn, as many of my classmates have done the same for their progeny today, attending these schools preferring the "magic" about a no less than 4 year experience at some of these places related to "culture, sports, club membership and character building". To the contrary, many of my older peers were not dumb. To the contrary, today many are well accomplished in a variety of fields and will attest, down to the last man, that Harvard and Amherst after high school was a walk in the park because academic rigor peaked with their high school experience.

Today, many students (up to 20 percent) will "redshirt" or take a year off before entering college. Granted, they may be older (even perhaps wiser) than their classmates at Harvard or Amherst, but not necessarily more dumb or victimised by the younger students.

With folk living well into their 80s and 90s these days it is much more important to get a quality education. Rushing to the finish line at 17 (high school) and 21 (college) and then bouncing around from one unsatisfactory job to the next for the next 50 years is not what I would wish for any youngster. Finishing 1 or 2 (even 3) years later and having a productive, rewarding and satisfying occupation seems much more important and preferable.

In the grand scheme of things, this makes discussions, out of any context to the child, about "redshirting" before K, 9th or the undergraduate years seem superfluous in light of a potential adulthood career that may span 50 to 60 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish one or more elite private schools in DC would, for once and all, put children in the correct grade. When the admission committee is holding the application of a nearly 6 yr old, I wish, say, Sidwell's admission committee would have the balls to say Hey guess what? You don't belong in kindergarten. I wish that Beauvoir, for example, would put 4 year olds in preK and 5 year olds in K. The applicants whose child will turn 7 will have to apply elsewhere, in my dream scenario.

why does the op think the admissions at Beauvoir and Sidwell are placing kids in wrong grades?

They want consistent classes - kids of relatively equal intellect. They don't want certain kids starting trouble because they can't sit still or can't identify letters by PK. So they try to give them an extra year to see if they can catch up.

[Anonymous]

They want consistent classes - kids of relatively equal intellect. They don't want certain kids starting trouble because they can't sit still or can't identify letters by PK. So they try to give them an extra year to see if they can catch up.

When it comes to populations of 5 to 8 year olds and activity and intellect it is dificult to take the "Bell" out of the Bell shaped curve (normal distribution) even if they all have a WPSSI of 99.9 percentile. Perhaps isolated home schooling is your realism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

They want consistent classes - kids of relatively equal intellect. They don't want certain kids starting trouble because they can't sit still or can't identify letters by PK. So they try to give them an extra year to see if they can catch up.

When it comes to populations of 5 to 8 year olds and activity and intellect it is dificult to take the "Bell" out of the Bell shaped curve (normal distribution) even if they all have a WPSSI of 99.9 percentile. Perhaps isolated home schooling is your realism.

I think you're getting me mixed up with other posters because your homeschooling comment is ridiculous. I would never homeschool my children, and there is no reason why I would need to do such a thing.

However, it's well known that competitive private schools do everything they can to smooth out the bell. They want consistently bright kids who are "prepared for school" - in other words, they won't be acting up and disrupting the other kids. Nursery school directors have said this out loud to parents, particularly in reference to one or two schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am laughing because I can't even get offended by your denial. You and I both KNOW children will be children, and they will tease and torment the other child who is much older.

By the way, I have 2 master's degrees in early child development and a PhD in Psychology, in case you think I am hallucinating!

Peace and honesty from the realist!!

Psychology consultation:

I do not follow your logic. If these older kids are red shirted (when they alledgedly shouldn't be from a developmental standpoint) then an extra year in the world alledgedly makes them more physically and intellectually developed than their younger peers ("the unfair advantage" everyone is worried about)-- primed to be leaders in the classroom and gridiron.

What will be the motive/motivation/gumption for the younger child to tease or bully the older child that is bigger, stronger, smarter and more handsome? Why wouldn't envy and adoration prevail instead?

I think I need to first let you know where I stand on the redshirting issue, so you will be more informed about my position. First, I am against redshirting, period. I feel all children should start K when they are old enough, unless they have delays, in which case maybe they should be enrolled in a different school where their needs can be more appropriately met. Redshirting does not give a child an academic advantage. I believe it hinders them in the long run, and can have negative social implications.

Also, age and looks are not relevant in this case. Handsome boys/men are handsome and pretty girls/women are pretty, whether they are 2 years older or younger. We all attended school with big jocks, so yes - age will give the children (boys in articular) a physical advantage for sports.

Really smart children that are advanced socially, emotionally, and academically will not usually admire older bigger children who are academically slow. Also, I am not predicting they will bully less smart kids. I simply know that intellect is still considered a positive thing for kids to possess, and those who have it are often able to recognize or make assumptions about others who seem to lack it in school.

Realist

I agree except for one thing. What you say condems all children with any type of delays who are held back to NEVER go to public or another private school b/c, according to you they should go to a "special" school that may meet their needs better. Needs can change. A child who maybe starts in a special school may be able to go to public or another private in the grade appropriate for them.

This whole post disgusts me really. I can see why parents of kids with more/other needs would keep quiet b/c otherwise they might be attacked by the masses who have no business or say in their childs education.