Long term affects - good or bad - of holding back from kindergarten

[Anonymous]

Let me add this comment as a response to those who think holding a child back is "redshirting" for individual advantage and ask what, by god, will happen when everyone holds their child back. I think the U.S., particularly in the past 10 years, is starting every child too early. I think my child, in particular, is not ready for this and some children may be more receptive but I also believe that every child would benefit from being allowed to just be a kid until at least age 6 but preferably age 7. Maybe I could force my child to sit down and listen and learn to read at age 5 but I think I would be doing him a disservice. Being a kid and all that the concept entails is developmentally appropriate and beneficial. You won't find a study showing that kids who are required to sit in little desks to learn to read at age 5 are doing better academically at later stages. (In fact, you will find studies establishing the opposite.) So, when I say that my kid is not ready, I think that is a normal, healthy thing that I should support.

[Anonymous]

16:07 -- first you are arguing a straw man b/c kindergarten is set up to be age appropriate. They don't sit in desks and recite material for 7.5 hours. Frankly, they do a lot of fluffy stuff. Kids are curious and formal education at the kindergarten level is not the same as being in a HS classroom.

Secondly, the studies actually show that kids who get formal preschool (and kindergarten would be similar to that) actually do better later on. It's a savings for our entire culture/country/system if kids get age-appropriate stimulation and exposure to numbers and reading and thinking through problems and imagining and writing. If a child has special needs it would seem especially important for them to be getting services that the public school system provides (and they put a lot of effort into this-- my kids ES has a special preschool program for kids with special needs that runs all year and all summer). In school they get the special attention they need.

As for "being a kid" and "having time to play" my kids had fun IN kindergarten and they consider it FUN to think about new things and hear stories and do dress up and draw pictures, and play the xylophone, and run around, and play with shapes, and play "store" and go to the library, and even looking at books ---- which is EXACTLY what they do in PUBLIC kindergarten. It's not exactly stretching them beyond their capacity. In fact, 2nd child was more than a little bored and wanted to go straight to 2nd grade as he was finishing kindergarten. HE wanted more and still does. Kids like to be challenged. It's not a prison in kindergarten.

It's not about pushing our kids to read before they are ready -- many are actually "ready" long before we realize it. And they are ready to learn, learn, learn.

I think you're vision of kindergarten is not based in reality... but hey -- you're entitled to do what you wish with your kid.

[Anonymous]

I really wanted to push mine forward b/c he missed the dealine by 10 days! But the school would not let me. Fast forward 16 years -- really worked out well for DS. He is bigger and more mature. Also going to TJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:16:07 -- first you are arguing a straw man b/c kindergarten is set up to be age appropriate. They don't sit in desks and recite material for 7.5 hours. Frankly, they do a lot of fluffy stuff. Kids are curious and formal education at the kindergarten level is not the same as being in a HS classroom.

Secondly, the studies actually show that kids who get formal preschool (and kindergarten would be similar to that) actually do better later on. It's a savings for our entire culture/country/system if kids get age-appropriate stimulation and exposure to numbers and reading and thinking through problems and imagining and writing. If a child has special needs it would seem especially important for them to be getting services that the public school system provides (and they put a lot of effort into this-- my kids ES has a special preschool program for kids with special needs that runs all year and all summer). In school they get the special attention they need.

As for "being a kid" and "having time to play" my kids had fun IN kindergarten and they consider it FUN to think about new things and hear stories and do dress up and draw pictures, and play the xylophone, and run around, and play with shapes, and play "store" and go to the library, and even looking at books ---- which is EXACTLY what they do in PUBLIC kindergarten. It's not exactly stretching them beyond their capacity. In fact, 2nd child was more than a little bored and wanted to go straight to 2nd grade as he was finishing kindergarten. HE wanted more and still does. Kids like to be challenged. It's not a prison in kindergarten.

It's not about pushing our kids to read before they are ready -- many are actually "ready" long before we realize it. And they are ready to learn, learn, learn.

I think you're vision of kindergarten is not based in reality... but hey -- you're entitled to do what you wish with your kid.

I wish it wasn't based in reality but the FCPS that I actually did observe was not play-based. I saw a group of children receiving a lecture during which they were expected to sit still and be quiet. The teacher subtracted points if they whispered. She wasn't mean about it but the standard she expected is not one my son could meet. He sits still only when he is working on legos or some other project of his own. He is in a private play-based preschool that provides the amount of structure that I think he can handle but he would be the "bad kid" in the class I observed. And, if he were not, he would be a very different child from who he is today and I do not view pressuring this change as a positive thing. I agree that kindergarten is supposed to be age-appropriate but I do not believe it is -- at least not in Fairfax County.

[Anonymous]

OP here - thank you grammar police. Now, can we get back to the topic at hand?

[Anonymous]

You won't find a study showing that kids who are required to sit in little desks to learn to read at age 5 are doing better academically at later stages. (In fact, you will find studies establishing the opposite.)

Actually, I do think most kids should learn to read at age 5, barring some sort of learning or developmental disability. Whether they do that by sitting at little desks at school or at home with their parents seems immaterial to me.

[Anonymous]

Why is it so hard to understand that larger older kids who belong in first grade DO AFFECT the kids who were not held back. (I'm talking about kids who are simply held back for reshirting purposes. There is no way that many kids were not developmentally ready). You have turned the kindergarten class into an 18-month span in age.

I don't really agree with this line of reasoning. My son was born on the last day that he could be in order to be in kindergarten next year. So most of the kids in his class will be considerably older than him. We did not redshirt him because he seems to be developmentally normal and we hope everything will work out. Do you think the fact that he is the youngest (by far, in many cases) is going to have a bad effect on him? If so, would you support redshirting him so that he can be the oldest (by a considerable amount) next year? What about the kids born right on the line? There's going to be a big age span for someone, the only issue is who is going to have to deal with being on the younger end of it.

[Anonymous]

I think the point is that there ALREADY is a 12 month age span that the system is prepared to handle. By red-shirting and extending that span now to 18 mos., it just makes it harder for the teacher and for the other kids... particularly when it becomes the norm that boys born in May or later should be held back.

As for the poster who says her son couldn't sit like the kindergarteners in Ffx Cnty -- I think you have to be careful about assessing your child as you (the parent) see him and assessing how he deals when in a school/class situation where you are not there. Kids almost always behave WAY better in a school setting than they do at home. They seem so immature around parents, and yet pull themselves together quite well at school. And I'm the PP who talked about kinder being very age-appropriate ---- and my experience IS with Ffx Cnty schools (two kids have passed through the kinder program, one who was a 7/31 bday, not red-shirted). Kinder is just not that challenging. And they spend about 2 months teaching them the routines. It IS very kid-friendly.

[Anonymous]

I think the point is that there ALREADY is a 12 month age span that the system is prepared to handle. By red-shirting and extending that span now to 18 mos., it just makes it harder for the teacher and for the other kids... particularly when it becomes the norm that boys born in May or later should be held back.

But what indicates that the additional 6 months you are referring to are going to make any difference, when there is already a 12 month difference? And what indicates to you that the current system handles the potential 12 month difference well?

[Anonymous]

17;36 I agree with you. I went to assist in our K class. The teacher sat them all down and began a long a very dull lecture. I felt like I was back in college in the dullest course ever.

[Anonymous]

And when the 19 yo high school senior boy has sex with the 14 or 15 year old freshman girl it will be considered rape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is it so hard to understand that larger older kids who belong in first grade DO AFFECT the kids who were not held back. (I'm talking about kids who are simply held back for reshirting purposes. There is no way that many kids were not developmentally ready). You have turned the kindergarten class into an 18-month span in age. It makes the age appropriate kids seem younger than they are! Of course we care when you hold back your kids just to give them an edge! It is very self centered to think that inappropriate ages don't aaffect the whole class. (btw, affect is a verb. Effect is a noun).

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is it so hard to understand that larger older kids who belong in first grade DO AFFECT the kids who were not held back. (I'm talking about kids who are simply held back for reshirting purposes. There is no way that many kids were not developmentally ready). You have turned the kindergarten class into an 18-month span in age. It makes the age appropriate kids seem younger than they are! Of course we care when you hold back your kids just to give them an edge! It is very self centered to think that inappropriate ages don't aaffect the whole class. (btw, affect is a verb. Effect is a noun).

+1000

+1000 as well- and I have 3 October kids!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And when the 19 yo high school senior boy has sex with the 14 or 15 year old freshman girl it will be considered rape.

Someone always makes this hysterical argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And when the 19 yo high school senior boy has sex with the 14 or 15 year old freshman girl it will be considered rape.

Someone always makes this hysterical argument.

why is it hysterical? The girl's parents are enraged and press charges even if it is consensual.