The kid who starts later is not spending any more years in school than the kid who starts on time unless s/he actually repeats K (or in DC, pre-K), which is relatively rare.

Excellent post, 9:39. Thank you.

Anonymous wrote:My dissertation advisor used to say "college is wasted on the young." Doesn't strike me as a problem if kids start at 19 rather than 17 or 19.

How many years are you willing fund public education?

My dissertation advisor used to say "college is wasted on the young." Doesn't strike me as a problem if kids start at 19 rather than 17 or 19.

Anonymous wrote:Why so judgmental? At a very early age, kids are expected to master subjects which some just aren't developmentally ready to do. Others are ready at an earlier age. Trying to decide what is right for the child is tricky for both the teachers and parents who know them well. It just seems strange to have such decided opinions about kids you haven't met and could not possibly have any knowledge about.

I'm not judgmental. No one is expecting the children to begin reading at ages 4-5. My most active child [who was and still is the least interested in reading] started shortly after his fourth bday. He has read 1 book for pleasure in years - Tucker maxx.

I suppose your child is unique and special with no common denominators to any of the other redshirts I've encountered over the years. Bottom line is any child born before the standard end of the school year should not have the option.

Parents and teachers don't like splits [combo classes] which are done for budget and staffing purposes. The RS issue forces a split on kids. High school? Adults as juniors.

There's a difference between being developmentally delayed by a learning disability and being developmentally behind your age cohort (especially in a private school with selective admissions) with respect to some particular skill/capacity -- I thought that was implicit in the "wide range of normal" comment, but maybe it would help if I spell it out more explicitly.

Reading readiness happens at a range of ages. A kid can be very smart and still not ready to read until he's 8. But when he's ready to read at 8, he'll learn to read as quickly and as well as equally smart kids who read at 6. It's like physical growth spurts -- obviously, kids have them at different times. It's not like the kid who has the earliest growth spurt will always be the tallest. The normal range of the onset of puberty in boys, for example, is 9-14 -- it's not a single year. And if you treated the average age (11) as the measure of normalcy, you'd end up pathologizing a helluva lot of kids with no real developmental issues. When nature's full of variation, it's worth thinking about when and where it's worth creating overly rigid norms.

Schools have a variety of ways they can deal with the phenomenon of natural variation. They can put all the kids of the same age together and make school a miserable experience for the kids not yet ready to do the work (and for the kids who are ready to do much harder work). They can differentiate instruction either by tracking or within a single class. They can sort kids by readiness/ability within a slightly broader age band (e.g. 2 years vs. 1 year). They can combine various aspects of these approaches.

I've got no problem with the wider age band approach. My kid, who was not "red-shirted," hasn't suffered from the fact that others were And I don't see how/why she could have. By contrast, I did see a problem (primarily but not exclusively for the kid in question) when a boy who was the right age (and quite smart) but not developmentally ready was in her PreK class.

My sense, especially since the metaphor is borrowed from sports, is that whether you accept or reject the practice probably relates to how you look at schools. I'm an educator so I look at them as places whose primary function is to foster learning. From that perspective, the practice makes lots of sense. If, by contrast, school's primarily an arena for competition I guess some people will resent any practice that helps some other kid but doesn't benefit their own. I just don't think it's such a zero-sum game.

Why so judgmental? At a very early age, kids are expected to master subjects which some just aren't developmentally ready to do. Others are ready at an earlier age. Trying to decide what is right for the child is tricky for both the teachers and parents who know them well. It just seems strange to have such decided opinions about kids you haven't met and could not possibly have any knowledge about.

Anonymous wrote:Who cares? Seriously, I don't see how someone else's kid suffers from having older kids in the class. It's not as if the older kids are usually way ahead of the curve. They're a class behind where they "should" be based on birthdate precisely because they are a bit behind many of their age-mates developmentally.

There's nothing sacred about grouping pupils strictly by age cohort -- much less assigning particular age cohorts to particular grades. Actually, it could make a lot of sense, educationally speaking, to hold off on expecting kids to read until they are 8 (which would translate into 7 y.ols in K). There's research that suggests such an approach would lead to a dramatic decrease in the number of kids (boys, in particular) classified as having learning disabilities.

As my pediatrician likes to say, there's a wide range of normal. Maybe it makes sense to build child-centered institutions around that premise. And I'd rather see older kids in my kids K classroom than my kid forced to wait until 7 for K.

My kids are older and this is a line of B$. If these RS's were developmentally delayed they would have IEP's and require special education services. Turning 7 by May in kindergarten is disgraceful. Some of us actually have a child with a disability and have solid experience.

My daughter will be 6 in Nov, and I am trying to fight to get her into K next year-not an issue for her academically or socially (she has 3 older sibs)-but I don't want her to be the youngest by 1 1/2 years.

My step son (years ago) has an August b day, was put into K, and has struggled for years. If his bio mother had waited a year, he would have done much better (imo-as a former K teacher).

You just can't win!

Who cares? Seriously, I don't see how someone else's kid suffers from having older kids in the class. It's not as if the older kids are usually way ahead of the curve. They're a class behind where they "should" be based on birthdate precisely because they are a bit behind many of their age-mates developmentally.

There's nothing sacred about grouping pupils strictly by age cohort -- much less assigning particular age cohorts to particular grades. Actually, it could make a lot of sense, educationally speaking, to hold off on expecting kids to read until they are 8 (which would translate into 7 y.ols in K). There's research that suggests such an approach would lead to a dramatic decrease in the number of kids (boys, in particular) classified as having learning disabilities.

As my pediatrician likes to say, there's a wide range of normal. Maybe it makes sense to build child-centered institutions around that premise. And I'd rather see older kids in my kids K classroom than my kid forced to wait until 7 for K.

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I think I won't give out the details you seek, 22:48, because if I did that then the handful of boys would be easy to identify. Why are my options that I am either lying or I must 'out' these kids to thousands of DCUM readers? If I give you their names, will you call them tonight?

No one's asking you to name the boys. Name the school and the number of kids that currently are seven years old. Everyone who is in your class already knows who they are, so it's no big secret. And anyone who knows any one of the boys from outside the school also knows his age. It's not "outing" anyone. If you're that upset by it, then how is general whining without details going to help anyone? If you name the school, then not only can people back up your claims, but people who are concerned about redshirting can ask appropriate questions during the application process.

Anonymous wrote:The publics are the same. My 8th grade son who just turned 14 is in the same class with 15 year olds who turned in January.

in

I never saw this spread in FCPS. The PP quoted has them in PLURALS.

OP,
What's the spread in months from oldest to youngest? That's the issue here.

No, I am not. You will be pleased to know that our son is, in fact, thriving. Appreciate your concern, though.

Anonymous wrote:Get a life!! Our child is a spring baby and was held back due to relatively unique development and maturity issues. He has never had an issue with it, and neither has any of his classmates. He now is in middle school. Get a life!!

Sure. And you're not defensive about it or anything, are ya?