Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is just ridiculous. Stop slamming kids who were held back - maybe some have parents who wanted to gain an edge, but many had parents who were trying to do the right thing for their children. There is no correlation between being on the older end of the age range and bullying, and I doubt that most kids who were held back feel that they failed their parents - unless they hear adults referring to them as "big moose" - that would sap anyone's self esteem.

But sometimes (and often times) holding back is not the right thing to do, yet parents do it anyways.

Not disagreeing, but is the best solution to insult those children, call them names, suggest that they should feel they disappointed their parents, and chart a path to bullying?

FWIW, the bullies in my childrens' classes have often been the younger/smaller kids, at least as often as they are the larger kids.

Anonymous wrote:

This is just ridiculous. Stop slamming kids who were held back - maybe some have parents who wanted to gain an edge, but many had parents who were trying to do the right thing for their children. There is no correlation between being on the older end of the age range and bullying, and I doubt that most kids who were held back feel that they failed their parents - unless they hear adults referring to them as "big moose" - that would sap anyone's self esteem.

But sometimes (and often times) holding back is not the right thing to do, yet parents do it anyways.

Anonymous wrote:It's a problem when it's too late: when a "held back" kid whose parents really know they should have been at the grade ahead but worried their kid was not going to be a classroom star at any grade becomes Big Moose. There's a lot of Big Moose boys walking around, knowing they failed their parents the first time around and insecure that they're still no better off. Then they bully others who are on grade level, younger and smaller and...brighter.

This is just ridiculous. Stop slamming kids who were held back - maybe some have parents who wanted to gain an edge, but many had parents who were trying to do the right thing for their children. There is no correlation between being on the older end of the age range and bullying, and I doubt that most kids who were held back feel that they failed their parents - unless they hear adults referring to them as "big moose" - that would sap anyone's self esteem.

11:05: "get over it or make more $". Are you related to the UVA Lacrosse murderer? That's just the kind of nouveau riche attitude that kills a kids' chances to be healthy emotionally.

It's a problem when it's too late: when a "held back" kid whose parents really know they should have been at the grade ahead but worried their kid was not going to be a classroom star at any grade becomes Big Moose. There's a lot of Big Moose boys walking around, knowing they failed their parents the first time around and insecure that they're still no better off. Then they bully others who are on grade level, younger and smaller and...brighter.

If your friend is not trying to game the system, then good for her. Unfortunately, there are enough people who ARE trying to "gain the edge" that it's hard to tell the difference.

Frankly, we were advised to do redshirt, when we applied to schools (no developmental or learning disabilities/delays), solely in order to gain an advantage in the admissions process. We decided against it, but I admit that we were tempted. But we also have friends who received similar advice and did decide to redshirt solely to gain the advantage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, no, not that. You mean he is going to turn 8 on the last day of first grade! Horrors! I can't believe he is going to be 8 when he starts second grade. The only 8 year old boys in the class should be the boys who turn 8 in the fall otherwise it's not fair!

My dd birthday is Sept 3. Cut off is Sept 1. Her school started Sept. 6. So she was 8 on the first day of 2nd grade legitimately. This child is only 2.5 mo older than my child. Big deal. I don't care. Why should a couple months matter so much? What's "not fair"? I don't get it. Its fair if everyone has the same options. As far as I know, there is not a qualifying test for retention/delayed start of school. So that option is open to everyone who chooses it. Now don't try to tell me its not fair b/c so people can't afford it. There are all kinds of inequities among the education of the affluent and the middles and the poor. People w/ $$ will always find a way to get ahead and get an advantage over others. Its human nature to give your children the best you can, whatever you believe that to be. Get over it or make more $. That's not a govt problem.

I was being sarcastic when I wrote the above post. I agree with you. I have become frustrated by the number of posters who assume that anyone who keeps a summer birthday child (particularly boys) are doing it to try to give their child an edge. Most parents I know that are doing it are doing it because it is in their child's best interest, i.e., there are academic or social reasons for doing it or the private school requires it. Furthermore, the only nonsummer birthday children I know who have been delayed were delayed for very good reasons having nothing to do with giving their children an unfair edge. For example, I know a little boy with a February birthday who had to repeat a year of preschool because of speech and other developmental delays. It was a tough and painful decision for his parents to make. The last thing this little boy or his parents need to hear as he gets older is snide comments that they were somehow gaming the system to give him an advantage. They are already worried enough that he is going to stick out like a sore thumb.

With our current system, you are always going to have a 12-month spread in a given grade. Some schools do multi-age groupings or manage to do smaller 6-month spreads in the pre-school classes, but otherwise, you are going to have a spread. Where problems happen is when you start to extend this range. A 12-month calendar age range really means up to a 24-month developmental age range. Realistically, teachers and schools should be prepared to support students who are developmentally below the chronological age for a given grade. It's called differentiation and should be an expected part of a given classroom. The problem here is really two-fold: teachers balking at helping kids below grade-level, though still within the normal range of development; and parents fearing having a kid being anything but the star of the class. Ultimately, everyone suffers when kids are moved out of the appropriate grade/age/developmental range for the wrong reasons. If a kid's developmental level is too far below his chronological age that he must be held behind than either A) the classroom is not prepared or B) that child needs additional supports, not just extra time. Some will ultimately be fine with extra time, but they likely would have been better off staying in the right grade and getting extra support.

I say this as an experienced teacher.

OK, so add 6-9 months to the classmate of your DD and you will get what people are complaining about. An 8 year old at some point in second grade is normal. A nine year old is not. That is where people are scratching their heads in disbelief.

Anonymous wrote:Oh, no, not that. You mean he is going to turn 8 on the last day of first grade! Horrors! I can't believe he is going to be 8 when he starts second grade. The only 8 year old boys in the class should be the boys who turn 8 in the fall otherwise it's not fair!

My dd birthday is Sept 3. Cut off is Sept 1. Her school started Sept. 6. So she was 8 on the first day of 2nd grade legitimately. This child is only 2.5 mo older than my child. Big deal. I don't care. Why should a couple months matter so much? What's "not fair"? I don't get it. Its fair if everyone has the same options. As far as I know, there is not a qualifying test for retention/delayed start of school. So that option is open to everyone who chooses it. Now don't try to tell me its not fair b/c so people can't afford it. There are all kinds of inequities among the education of the affluent and the middles and the poor. People w/ $$ will always find a way to get ahead and get an advantage over others. Its human nature to give your children the best you can, whatever you believe that to be. Get over it or make more $. That's not a govt problem.

I've heard about people getting phony ADD/ADHD diagnoses for their children too--anything to try and gain the edge. Unfortunately, there is always going to be someone attempting to game the system. It's despicable really--right up there with cheating on your taxes, parking in a disabled spot and kicking puppies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard from a psychologist that some affluent parents deliberately get a false diagnosis of ADD, so their children can be allotted more time for tests and school assignments. It makes me wonder how many people on this thread who claim that their children were redshirted for "developmental" reasons are really being honest...

Who are they getting this diagnosis from? Any professional who would do this is unethical. I don't doubt that it happens, but I'd be surprised if it was common .

It is done and some get diagnosis of slow processing while getting over 2000 on SAT's and extra time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I heard from a psychologist that some affluent parents deliberately get a false diagnosis of ADD, so their children can be allotted more time for tests and school assignments. It makes me wonder how many people on this thread who claim that their children were redshirted for "developmental" reasons are really being honest...

Who are they getting this diagnosis from? Any professional who would do this is unethical. I don't doubt that it happens, but I'd be surprised if it was common .

It is done and some get diagnosis of slow processing while getting over 2000 on SAT's and extra time.

Anonymous wrote:I heard from a psychologist that some affluent parents deliberately get a false diagnosis of ADD, so their children can be allotted more time for tests and school assignments. It makes me wonder how many people on this thread who claim that their children were redshirted for "developmental" reasons are really being honest...

Who are they getting this diagnosis from? Any professional who would do this is unethical. I don't doubt that it happens, but I'd be surprised if it was common .

Graduating HS at 18 and summer birthdays starting a few months "late" is not the issue that many have on DCUM.

Glad to see your DC is doing well.

New poster here on this thread --

We held back our DC in 3rd grade, in a multi-grade setting where it didn't matter much stigma-wise if he didn't advance a grade. He was by far the youngest in his grade, and on top of it, socially less mature and academically behind to some degree. That "extra" third grade year has made all the difference. He's with kids his age now, has caught up and surpassed a lot of kids and is socially doing about right. Now that he's completing 4th grade, I'm so glad we did it. An extra year before middle school. And he'll graduate from HS at age 18, which I think is appropriate.

We should have done it earlier and would have if we had figured out that it was not only possible but that a lot of other parents were doing it as well.