You were,able to take HS level classes?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Believe me, you wouldn't have wanted my just-turning-five- boy starting kindergarten with your child. He would have disrupted class the entire year. Now at the late end of 5 he is ready to sit down for more than 5 minutes at a time and is receptive to learning things. It's a win-win situation -- he won't have to feel like a bad boy for constantly getting time outs for not listening or feel stupid for not getting the academic stuff, and his classmates won't have their learning time interrupted by the disruptive kid running around, talking too much, wanting to play when he should be listening to a book during circle time, crying because he hated the work and probably needed a little nap.

Is that what we want for Kindergarten, though? A place where a developmentally perfectly average child wouldn't function well, because the standards are higher than what the average child can manage?

If this change towards a more academic K had led to increased academic performance for our primary and secondary students, increasing readiness for college or life after high school, it might make sense. Those aren't the results I'm seeing. Why not keep K a place where perfectly average children - including those who still need a rest - can thrive?

My child could do seat work for hours from a very young age. It wasn't good or appropriate for her, however. She NEEDED to move around and play, not sit at a table. She would not have been stilted by not coloring an "A is for Apple" worksheet at 2, or copying the alphabet out at 3, or coloring in all the objects that started with 'T' at 4. Every single one of those activities could have been more appropriately accomplished in a kinetic way. Playing in the sandbox or with play dough for fine motor, having a treasure hunt outside for objects that begin with a certain sound, etc. It's just easier to sit children down at a table with worksheets ... as long as the parents hold out the children for whom sitting at a table with worksheets is likely to lead to frustrated misbehavior.

Sure, I agree -- it's not what I want for kindergarten, no way. But it is the reality, and so I kept him back until he was ready for the 1st grade environment that kindergarten has become.

Anonymous wrote:

If I ruled the world I would have a place for 8/9 grade go to take HS classes with out the juniors/seniors around.

I went to a school like that--it was called "junior high" and it was 7, 8, and 9th grades. Wasn't perfect, either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Believe me, you wouldn't have wanted my just-turning-five- boy starting kindergarten with your child. He would have disrupted class the entire year. Now at the late end of 5 he is ready to sit down for more than 5 minutes at a time and is receptive to learning things. It's a win-win situation -- he won't have to feel like a bad boy for constantly getting time outs for not listening or feel stupid for not getting the academic stuff, and his classmates won't have their learning time interrupted by the disruptive kid running around, talking too much, wanting to play when he should be listening to a book during circle time, crying because he hated the work and probably needed a little nap.

Is that what we want for Kindergarten, though? A place where a developmentally perfectly average child wouldn't function well, because the standards are higher than what the average child can manage?

If this change towards a more academic K had led to increased academic performance for our primary and secondary students, increasing readiness for college or life after high school, it might make sense. Those aren't the results I'm seeing. Why not keep K a place where perfectly average children - including those who still need a rest - can thrive?

My child could do seat work for hours from a very young age. It wasn't good or appropriate for her, however. She NEEDED to move around and play, not sit at a table. She would not have been stilted by not coloring an "A is for Apple" worksheet at 2, or copying the alphabet out at 3, or coloring in all the objects that started with 'T' at 4. Every single one of those activities could have been more appropriately accomplished in a kinetic way. Playing in the sandbox or with play dough for fine motor, having a treasure hunt outside for objects that begin with a certain sound, etc. It's just easier to sit children down at a table with worksheets ... as long as the parents hold out the children for whom sitting at a table with worksheets is likely to lead to frustrated misbehavior.

Is that what we want for Kindergarten, though? A place where a developmentally perfectly average child wouldn't function well, because the standards are higher than what the average child can manage?

If this change towards a more academic K had led to increased academic performance for our primary and secondary students, increasing readiness for college or life after high school, it might make sense. Those aren't the results I'm seeing. Why not keep K a place where perfectly average children - including those who still need a rest - can thrive?

If I ruled the world I would have a place for 8/9 grade go to take HS classes with out the juniors/seniors around.

Anonymous wrote:Believe me, you wouldn't have wanted my just-turning-five- boy starting kindergarten with your child. He would have disrupted class the entire year. Now at the late end of 5 he is ready to sit down for more than 5 minutes at a time and is receptive to learning things. It's a win-win situation -- he won't have to feel like a bad boy for constantly getting time outs for not listening or feel stupid for not getting the academic stuff, and his classmates won't have their learning time interrupted by the disruptive kid running around, talking too much, wanting to play when he should be listening to a book during circle time, crying because he hated the work and probably needed a little nap.

If retaining a 3/4/5/6 year old for lack of academic or emotional maturity is a good thing, why can't the same be said for retaining a 13-16 yr old?

Anonymous wrote:cont. She felt her daughter--while academically fine--was hanging out with people who were older and more mature. Her daughter was not emotionally ready for some of the stuff in her life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If this were one or two kids, it really would get lost in the noise. But like I point out, at my kid's school, she's the youngest by 3 months, and she has a June birthday. It's ridiculous.

What school does your child go to?

Anonymous wrote:There's a big difference between redshirting a child who is immature and redshirting a child who is not. If you are doing it just to make your child the best in the class--that is not a good reason.

Anonymous wrote:This bugs me, too. In my children's school, there is one family with 4 children - all boys - and the parents redshirted them ALL. So, they are all much older than the rest of the kids in their respective classes and taller and larger and they just don't fit in well. She told me all about doing this and how she thought it was a great idea and I just couldn't bring myself to tell her how dumb it is. My kids started K at age 5 and they loved it and they are advanced academically. I think a child is either going to do well in school or not and starting them late is not going to help their chances of succeding academically anyways.