They do that here with MSI soccer

Anonymous wrote:Quite a few children at our NWDC public school have to re-do 4th grade when they start at STA and NCS (maybe at other schools too). Seems very odd but it also suggests that it is school-driven rather than (entirely) parent-driven.

Also, to the extent that some redshirting is intended to give kids an advantage in sports, it seems that the sports teams/clubs could eliminate this issue by forming teams based on birthdate rather than by school year. Even schools teams could do this - for ex., must have a birthdate within such and such to qualify for varsity, jv, etc. There are always solutions. Again, it sounds like the schools might be driving this re: sports b/c the solution would be so easy.

Some areas of the country does do this as my brother found out when they moved to the Midwest. His kids could not play on teams (soccer) with their classmates but with kids a grade ahead.

There is no one reason for the wide age differentials in private school grades. Some are due to maturity. Some are due to academics. I know someone who kept her son back an entire year before kindergarten because he was tiny. Now he is in high school and he is 18 feet taller than everyone around him. Go figure. Another parent I know held their kid back bc she didn't want him driving with his friends when he was 9-10 months younger than all of them. I'm not sure how she plans to prevent him from having friends who are older than he is, regardless of his grade. But not everyone does it just to be the biggest, strongest or most attractive to college sports recruiters.

Quite a few children at our NWDC public school have to re-do 4th grade when they start at STA and NCS (maybe at other schools too). Seems very odd but it also suggests that it is school-driven rather than (entirely) parent-driven.

Also, to the extent that some redshirting is intended to give kids an advantage in sports, it seems that the sports teams/clubs could eliminate this issue by forming teams based on birthdate rather than by school year. Even schools teams could do this - for ex., must have a birthdate within such and such to qualify for varsity, jv, etc. There are always solutions. Again, it sounds like the schools might be driving this re: sports b/c the solution would be so easy.

As a kid I went to Potomac (and am now a 40 year old man). I transferred into Potomac from a McLean elementary school, and a requirement for me gaining acceptance was to repeat the 3rd grade at Potomac. I did. And it was a blessing. I went from being one of the 'dummies' to being on par with the class. I went to a great college and am a physician (who obviously doesn't have any patients this afternoon--hence wasting time on DCUM) with a great practice. My daughter is supposed to start at a public KG this year, but we are sending her to a private school, and , are going to keep her back a year as well. I think that the kids are more mature and better to handle school if they are a little older.

I am the OP and all of the kids were girls. Birthdays in March, April, and two in June. I understand the need to decide personally about an August, even a July birthday but March? I just thought maybe they were held back but they are in the top classes so that couldn't be.

Also, I didn't realize this was an issue on DCUM. I am not on here a lot and have never seen it posted.

Another reason it came up (in my daughter's eyes) is because of ages of things like a phone, instagram account, driver's licenses etc... I didn't think of this. Having girls 18+ months older in the same grade is just strange to me.

What I find crazy is how the "acceptable" birthdate cut-off for redshirting purposes keeps getting rolled back earlier and earlier. When I was in middle school/high school, there were a handful of redshirted boys with summer birthdays, and one or two with May birthdays. Fast-forward to today: I know someone who redshirted their son with a March birthday.

My nephew is one of these kids, and i'd like to echo the PP that said sometimes it's the school not the parent. His birthday is in the middle of August. He completed Pre-K at a public school, and when his parents went to enroll him in his sister's private for K, they would only admit him as a Pre-K student even though their actual cut-off for Kindergarten admittance was 9/1. Even with those factors, he was not the oldest student in his class. Next year for Kindergarten there will be several of his friends who have been 6 years old for months.

At the beginning of the school year, I could see their reasoning as he wasn't as mature as my other nephew who while born in the same year had a much earlier birthday (February vs August). But by the end of the school year, the differences between them had virtually disappeared and my nephew was extremely bored with Pre-K. To his private school's credit they did well with adapting material to fit his needs.

Anonymous wrote:Don't most European nations (but not the British) start first grade at age seven, for good reason (not financially motivated)?

No.

http://www.nfer.ac.uk/shadomx/apps/fms/fmsdownload.cfm?file_uuid=3B48895C-E497-6F68-A237-BCD7AB934443&siteName=nfer

People - and schools - do it on purpose. Children test better when they're older, they find it easier to handle the excessive workload, and they're likely to be more capable athletically.

I perceive some negatives. Parents holding their children back due to (inappropriate) educational expectations encourage schools in continuing with those inappropriate educational expectations, as well as other parents. When parents hear "Johnny read Oliver Twist in Kindergarten!" they don't hear "Johnny, age 7, read Oliver Twist!" and think their "Billy, age 5, struggling with Cat In The Hat" is disadvantaged at best or delayed at worst. Educators should explain to parents that children achieve fluency over a range of ages instead of suggesting that a 5/6/7 year old who is still working on achieving fluency is somehow behind. Instead, they are well aware that children who are reading fluently are basically self-educable and they want children reading fluently from the beginning of their academic careers. Additionally, children who are older have longer attention spans and require less behavior management, so naturally educators prefer those children in their classrooms. I think that can lead to children who are intellectually ready for more of a challenge being prevented from engaging in that challenge because of a single area of slower growth. As I told my child's teachers, if I were retained in Kindergarten due to immature social growth, I would probably still be struggling to be promoted to first grade.

It will be interesting to see what the kids who have grown up in this environment do for their own children when it comes time.

Anonymous wrote:I am the pp. I think it is fine. But it seems to get the other DCUMers very wound up. I think they perceive it as some how disadvantages their children. Which really cuts against their argument that it is dumb to do because it all evens out in the end.

New poster. This inconsistency drives me bonkers. If people want to argue against holding back children, they ought to at least stick to a logical argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here we go...

Yes. Some people do this. Yes. Most people on DCUM think it is horrible. Yes. It will continue.

Why? A lot of my problems in school stemmed from my not reading on the expected schedule. Everyone worried. A few years later, I was reading the classics. Got a Ph.D. in a subject in the humanities.

A year or two delay would have made everyone happier. If there were an organized program of not starting kids on day long academics until 6 or 7 or even 8, I'd take it!

I'm with you, 8:23. Don't most European nations (but not the British) start first grade at age seven, for good reason (not financially motivated)?

Most children are more ready to sit in a desk all day long at age seven. Hence the longterm higher academic success of European children, possibly?

We were at a progressive school and I noticed that kids were actually almost a year younger in each grade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here we go...

Yes. Some people do this. Yes. Most people on DCUM think it is horrible. Yes. It will continue.

Why? A lot of my problems in school stemmed from my not reading on the expected schedule. Everyone worried. A few years later, I was reading the classics. Got a Ph.D. in a subject in the humanities.

A year or two delay would have made everyone happier. If there were an organized program of not starting kids on day long academics until 6 or 7 or even 8, I'd take it!

I am the pp. I think it is fine. But it seems to get the other DCUMers very wound up. I think they perceive it as some how disadvantages their children. Which really cuts against their argument that it is dumb to do because it all evens out in the end.

I see a fair amount of kids in privates who started a year earlier than public would have admitted them - my daughter included. I found private schools looked at readiness more than age.