Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems to me that this is more of a concern for mothers with sons, rather than daughters. God forbid that their son is amongst the shortest boys in the kindergarten class, with all these huge 7 year olds in it! Or that they can't compete in sports with all these older boys in the class.

Not a concern for the mothers of daughters until high school when the nearly 20 year old senior takes their 14 year old freshman daughter to prom...

Oh shit. I didn't think of that! So not ok...

Believe me it's a problem when 19 and even 20 year olds are living at home and not going off to college. Many of the 19 year boys in my sons senior class are miserable. He is 17 and it feels right.

How about the 18yr old illegal alien sophomore banging the freshman in the hallway during school at Richard Montgomery last year . So gross!

But if he'd been an 18-year-old Mayflower-descendant senior, it would have been just fine?

Also, as far as I know, his residency status was never made public, so it's interesting that you assume that he's an undocumented immigrant.

Anonymous wrote:Shit. My son is taller than most of the kids in his current class and has a September birthday, so he misses the cutoff for Kindergarten where we live. Should I anticipate that people will talk about him like this when he starts school?

I know, right? My DD is taller than all the other kids in her grade but isn't even among the oldest half of the class. Can't help but wonder if parents who don't know her age are thinking this about her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems to me that this is more of a concern for mothers with sons, rather than daughters. God forbid that their son is amongst the shortest boys in the kindergarten class, with all these huge 7 year olds in it! Or that they can't compete in sports with all these older boys in the class.

Not a concern for the mothers of daughters until high school when the nearly 20 year old senior takes their 14 year old freshman daughter to prom...

Oh shit. I didn't think of that! So not ok...

Believe me it's a problem when 19 and even 20 year olds are living at home and not going off to college. Many of the 19 year boys in my sons senior class are miserable. He is 17 and it feels right.

How about the 18yr old illegal alien sophomore banging the freshman in the hallway during school at Richard Montgomery last year . So gross!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People wait until you get into high school. Those refugee kids splattered all over local schools are 17yr old freshman. There are 21yr old kids in high school. It is insane.

But yes the redshirting is insane. My friend's son just turned 16 as a freshman and was 7 in K. I think there should be a minimum and maximum age.

There is.

No there isn't. It should be 2 months on either end of Sept 1st OR evaluated or special accommodation request (like a PP with a death in the family) to not enter K by 5yrs old.

Nothing is more annoying than bragging moms of redshirt kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems to me that this is more of a concern for mothers with sons, rather than daughters. God forbid that their son is amongst the shortest boys in the kindergarten class, with all these huge 7 year olds in it! Or that they can't compete in sports with all these older boys in the class.

Not a concern for the mothers of daughters until high school when the nearly 20 year old senior takes their 14 year old freshman daughter to prom...

Oh shit. I didn't think of that! So not ok...

Believe me it's a problem when 19 and even 20 year olds are living at home and not going off to college. Many of the 19 year boys in my sons senior class are miserable. He is 17 and it feels right.

Anonymous wrote:Our friends held back their son so he could do an extra year in preschool after their younger child died and the family was in turmoil. The preschool teachers suggested they give him the extra year since he was struggling. I'm sure if someone didn't know the family, it might look like they just randomly held him back, but it was a very good decision for this family and this kid. By a few years later he might just seem like an older kid, but that extra year was important at the time

This is a sad story, but it is clearly not typical. Yes, there may be some reasons why children are held back that are not outwardly apparent. But in many cases it is because they want their child to "be a leader" or "be bigger" or "to give them an advantage." I know many who have redshirted for those reasons, and personally I that is unfair to everyone and should not be allowed. At a certain point parents should be required to have their child evaluated if they want to hold them back. Redshirting a May boy because he is slightly immature (what 5 year old boy isn't?!) is ridiculous!

I don't want people to do anything except admit the inconsistency. And also, explain why a parent is the best judge for whether a child should start school at 5 or 6, but not whether their child should start instead at 7, or 8. Or skip K completely. At what age do parents stop being the best judge and the school begin to be the best judge? Is it the same age for both retention and advancement? Parents arguing for (and against) redshirting often say parents are the best judge. What does that mean? Why in this case and not in others?

My guess is that the schools allow parents to make the decision to send kids later but not earlier is that there are some parents out there who would send their kids earlier because it saves them daycare tuition. I'm not saying most parents would do this, but there are some out there who see K as the chance to have six hours of free daycare and so might want to send their October or November birthday kids, even if they are not truly ready. Parents who send their kids a year later are not saving any money by doing so, so the schools see parents holding their kids out as doing what they think is best for their kids. It would be hard for the school to allow parents to decide and end up with many kids in a class who should have waited until the following year.

I wrote above about a child born on September 30. When tested by the school, he was found to be unready for and the school counselor encouraged the parent to keep him out till the next year. The parent disregarded this advice and sent him anyway. It was a mistake all around for the child and for his classmates who had to endure his behavior. If parents could choose to send their kids early, some parents would send their kids whether they were ready or not.

"Almost" doesn't count.

Anonymous wrote:People wait until you get into high school. Those refugee kids splattered all over local schools are 17yr old freshman. There are 21yr old kids in high school. It is insane.

But yes the redshirting is insane. My friend's son just turned 16 as a freshman and was 7 in K. I think there should be a minimum and maximum age.

There is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why aren't parents the best judge (in public school) when it comes to accelerating children in that same, very specific, very limited circumstance? If they can choose to hold out a year, why not allow them to accelerate a year? What makes parents the best judge at delay but not the best judge at acceleration?

Take it up with your state board of education -- or the board of trustees of your private school, if you're in private school.

Huh. So you think it makes perfect sense for parents to be the best judge for retaining, but not accelerating.

And parents who think parents are the best judge for accelerating should take it up with the authorities. Yet people here get all angst ridden when parents vent about a growing trend of other parents retaining, often for no specific reason.

Interesting.

You're the one who wants a change from the status quo. So you're the one who should push for the change from the status quo.

My children are in grades appropriate for them, so I'm not particularly worried about it. I do find this discrepancy fascinating though.
You seem somewhat hostile about it. That's interesting too.

I am impatient with people who want to complain about Problem X but want other people to do the work it takes to fix Problem X.

I don't want people to do anything except admit the inconsistency. And also, explain why a parent is the best judge for whether a child should start school at 5 or 6, but not whether their child should start instead at 7, or 8. Or skip K completely. At what age do parents stop being the best judge and the school begin to be the best judge? Is it the same age for both retention and advancement? Parents arguing for (and against) redshirting often say parents are the best judge. What does that mean? Why in this case and not in others?

Our friends held back their son so he could do an extra year in preschool after their younger child died and the family was in turmoil. The preschool teachers suggested they give him the extra year since he was struggling. I'm sure if someone didn't know the family, it might look like they just randomly held him back, but it was a very good decision for this family and this kid. By a few years later he might just seem like an older kid, but that extra year was important at the time

People wait until you get into high school. Those refugee kids splattered all over local schools are 17yr old freshman. There are 21yr old kids in high school. It is insane.

But yes the redshirting is insane. My friend's son just turned 16 as a freshman and was 7 in K. I think there should be a minimum and maximum age.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son spent an extra year in preschool and has been the star of the class for two years in a row. We don't push him. He is mature and he handles himself well. Furthermore, he's not much bigger than the kids who are younger.

It wasn't a mistake. It was actually a way to ensure he would do well.

We had our reasons to start him a year later.

Then that makes no sense if he is mature and the star for two years in a row.

Yes, it does. He would have been an immature mess if we started him in K on time. He's a year ahead of the rest and can therefore handle the longer days. He doesn't act out, and he listens.

K isn't what it used to be. It's very academic. We weren't pushing our kid into an environment he couldn't handle. One extra year "to cook" did him some good.

Learning colors, numbers, shapes, basic reading, writing and math is too academic. I found it very slow paced. I don't see how it is so academic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why aren't parents the best judge (in public school) when it comes to accelerating children in that same, very specific, very limited circumstance? If they can choose to hold out a year, why not allow them to accelerate a year? What makes parents the best judge at delay but not the best judge at acceleration?

Take it up with your state board of education -- or the board of trustees of your private school, if you're in private school.

Huh. So you think it makes perfect sense for parents to be the best judge for retaining, but not accelerating.

And parents who think parents are the best judge for accelerating should take it up with the authorities. Yet people here get all angst ridden when parents vent about a growing trend of other parents retaining, often for no specific reason.

Interesting.

You're the one who wants a change from the status quo. So you're the one who should push for the change from the status quo.

My children are in grades appropriate for them, so I'm not particularly worried about it. I do find this discrepancy fascinating though.
You seem somewhat hostile about it. That's interesting too.

I am impatient with people who want to complain about Problem X but want other people to do the work it takes to fix Problem X.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son spent an extra year in preschool and has been the star of the class for two years in a row. We don't push him. He is mature and he handles himself well. Furthermore, he's not much bigger than the kids who are younger.

It wasn't a mistake. It was actually a way to ensure he would do well.

We had our reasons to start him a year later.

Then that makes no sense if he is mature and the star for two years in a row.

Yes, it does. He would have been an immature mess if we started him in K on time. He's a year ahead of the rest and can therefore handle the longer days. He doesn't act out, and he listens.

K isn't what it used to be. It's very academic. We weren't pushing our kid into an environment he couldn't handle. One extra year "to cook" did him some good.