Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many legitimate reasons to start kids in kindergarten a year later. Why on earth do people care!? My child will turn 6 right after school starts due to their birthday, so would be 7 most of kindergarten if held back (which we considered due to adoption at an older age). My sister's kids were born 3 months early and she doesn't plan to start them on time since they really are 3 months younger than their stated birthday.

People care because K is meant for 5 year olds. That's why.

What happens after they turn 6? Off to first grade?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many legitimate reasons to start kids in kindergarten a year later. Why on earth do people care!? My child will turn 6 right after school starts due to their birthday, so would be 7 most of kindergarten if held back (which we considered due to adoption at an older age). My sister's kids were born 3 months early and she doesn't plan to start them on time since they really are 3 months younger than their stated birthday.

People care because K is meant for 5 year olds. That's why.

No, kindergarten is meant for kids who are just starting to be ready for formal school. A 6 yr old who is developmentally at the same place as a 5 yr old belongs in kindergarten, and that is why you are allowed to delay a year. And, most kids turn 6 at some point during kindergarten - it is not really mostly 5 yr olds by spring, but rather mostly 6 yr olds, with some 5 and a couple 7.

The problem is that there are kids who are well beyond just being ready to start formal school who are entering kindergarten.

Yes, that's a problem inherent to an annual cut-off date. How do you propose to solve it?

Anonymous wrote:

You are insane if you dont think there are major developmental differences between early elementary kids who are 12-18 months apart.
- new poser

If there is only one first day of school per year, there will already be a 12-month range. Maybe you think that there should be two first days of school per year, one in September and one in March? If you turn 5 between March and September, you start in September in Kindergarten A, but if you turn 5 between September and March, you start in March in Kindergarten B?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many legitimate reasons to start kids in kindergarten a year later. Why on earth do people care!? My child will turn 6 right after school starts due to their birthday, so would be 7 most of kindergarten if held back (which we considered due to adoption at an older age). My sister's kids were born 3 months early and she doesn't plan to start them on time since they really are 3 months younger than their stated birthday.

People care because K is meant for 5 year olds. That's why.

No, kindergarten is meant for kids who are just starting to be ready for formal school. A 6 yr old who is developmentally at the same place as a 5 yr old belongs in kindergarten, and that is why you are allowed to delay a year. And, most kids turn 6 at some point during kindergarten - it is not really mostly 5 yr olds by spring, but rather mostly 6 yr olds, with some 5 and a couple 7.

The problem is that there are kids who are well beyond just being ready to start formal school who are entering kindergarten.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are many legitimate reasons to start kids in kindergarten a year later. Why on earth do people care!? My child will turn 6 right after school starts due to their birthday, so would be 7 most of kindergarten if held back (which we considered due to adoption at an older age). My sister's kids were born 3 months early and she doesn't plan to start them on time since they really are 3 months younger than their stated birthday.

People care because K is meant for 5 year olds. That's why.

No, kindergarten is meant for kids who are just starting to be ready for formal school. A 6 yr old who is developmentally at the same place as a 5 yr old belongs in kindergarten, and that is why you are allowed to delay a year. And, most kids turn 6 at some point during kindergarten - it is not really mostly 5 yr olds by spring, but rather mostly 6 yr olds, with some 5 and a couple 7.

Anonymous wrote:There are many legitimate reasons to start kids in kindergarten a year later. Why on earth do people care!? My child will turn 6 right after school starts due to their birthday, so would be 7 most of kindergarten if held back (which we considered due to adoption at an older age). My sister's kids were born 3 months early and she doesn't plan to start them on time since they really are 3 months younger than their stated birthday.

People care because K is meant for 5 year olds. That's why.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:5 to 7 is a big age range - a young 5 vs an older 7.

Please explain how it's possible to have "a young 5" and "an older 7" in the same kindergarten class at the same time. If a kid went on time is "a young 5", it will be at the beginning of the school year. But no kid who went one year late will be "an older 7" until the end of the school year. At most they might be "a young 7" at the beginning of the school year, if the kid's birthday were right after the cut-off AND the kid went one year late -- which would be very unusual.

Not that PP. My young 5 at the beginning of the school year is now 5.5, which is still a young 5 nowadays. The 7 year old, with a February, March, or April birthday would still be a young 7, you are right about that. It is actually a young 5 vs a young 7. Do you consider that a big age range? I do.

Why is five and a half a young 5 "nowadays"? A child who is five and a half turned five half a year ago. Is a child who is five and three-quarters also a young 5 nowadays? Is a child who is seven and a half a young 7?

Basically we are looking at an age range of 18 months (with holding kids back) vs. 12 months. Do I consider that a meaningful difference? No, I don't.

You are insane if you dont think there are major developmental differences between early elementary kids who are 12-18 months apart.
- new poser

There are many legitimate reasons to start kids in kindergarten a year later. Why on earth do people care!? My child will turn 6 right after school starts due to their birthday, so would be 7 most of kindergarten if held back (which we considered due to adoption at an older age). My sister's kids were born 3 months early and she doesn't plan to start them on time since they really are 3 months younger than their stated birthday.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is why all 5 year olds, barring a recommendation or diagnosis from a doctor should be required to attend school.

"In early childhood classrooms, where a month or two age difference can make a big difference, teachers perceive the youngest children in the class as having more attention struggles, and behavioral struggles, than the older children, irrespective of the child’s actual age.”

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/10/469929700/a-late-birth-date-could-boost-the-risk-of-an-adhd-diagnosis

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/03/youngest-kids-in-the-class-get-adhd-diagnoses.html

I don't get it. There is going to be a group of children that is the youngest, whether or not every child starts "on time". So this research is not relevant. Is there a study that shows that the likelihood of the youngest children in the class to be diagnosed with ADHD increases as the proportion of children in the class who started kindergarten a year late increases?

No, there isn't.

I'm PP and I hit submit too quickly. I meant to add that I haven't seen one and I have looked at a lot of the actual studies (not just magazine articles). But of course it is possible there is one that I haven't read that shows this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here is why all 5 year olds, barring a recommendation or diagnosis from a doctor should be required to attend school.

"In early childhood classrooms, where a month or two age difference can make a big difference, teachers perceive the youngest children in the class as having more attention struggles, and behavioral struggles, than the older children, irrespective of the child’s actual age.”

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/10/469929700/a-late-birth-date-could-boost-the-risk-of-an-adhd-diagnosis

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/03/youngest-kids-in-the-class-get-adhd-diagnoses.html

I don't get it. There is going to be a group of children that is the youngest, whether or not every child starts "on time". So this research is not relevant. Is there a study that shows that the likelihood of the youngest children in the class to be diagnosed with ADHD increases as the proportion of children in the class who started kindergarten a year late increases?

No, there isn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:K teacher here. i had two or three 7 year olds in my K class last year

Did their age benefit them academically or behaviorally? Or was it a detriment?

I am more curious about how having kids who should be second grade in kindergarten impacted the five year olds who were correctly placed according to their ages.

Here is why all 5 year olds, barring a recommendation or diagnosis from a doctor should be required to attend school.

"In early childhood classrooms, where a month or two age difference can make a big difference, teachers perceive the youngest children in the class as having more attention struggles, and behavioral struggles, than the older children, irrespective of the child’s actual age.”


http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/10/469929700/a-late-birth-date-could-boost-the-risk-of-an-adhd-diagnosis

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/03/youngest-kids-in-the-class-get-adhd-diagnoses.html

Actually this shows up in countries where redshirting isn't allowed or is very uncommon. There are multiple repeat studies showing the same heightened risk of ADHD diagnosis associated with a young age regardless of whether there is redshirting or not. Interestingly, the only country studied where it wasn't repeated was Denmark, where parents have greater discretion as to when they enroll their kids and there tend to be greater age ranges in the classrooms. In the Danish study, the study authors speculated that allowing greater parental discretion as to starting age ameliorates the ADHD risk. (They also theorized that the lack of a tie to age could also be cultural resistance to medication.) The Danish study is just one study but it was a fairly large one. I do think it is pretty clear from the studies thus far that barring redshirting won't fix or even help the problem of ADHD and relative age.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:5 to 7 is a big age range - a young 5 vs an older 7.

Please explain how it's possible to have "a young 5" and "an older 7" in the same kindergarten class at the same time. If a kid went on time is "a young 5", it will be at the beginning of the school year. But no kid who went one year late will be "an older 7" until the end of the school year. At most they might be "a young 7" at the beginning of the school year, if the kid's birthday were right after the cut-off AND the kid went one year late -- which would be very unusual.

Not that PP. My young 5 at the beginning of the school year is now 5.5, which is still a young 5 nowadays. The 7 year old, with a February, March, or April birthday would still be a young 7, you are right about that. It is actually a young 5 vs a young 7. Do you consider that a big age range? I do.

Why is five and a half a young 5 "nowadays"? A child who is five and a half turned five half a year ago. Is a child who is five and three-quarters also a young 5 nowadays? Is a child who is seven and a half a young 7?

Basically we are looking at an age range of 18 months (with holding kids back) vs. 12 months. Do I consider that a meaningful difference? No, I don't.

I think 18 months is too much of a difference. Especially when teachers have large class sizes. If it were set up to be some sort of combination class, fine. But there's no reason there needs to be an 18 month spread between the youngest and oldest child in school in a classroom in which a teacher is expected to teach to the majority of kids within a 1 year timespan.

Anonymous wrote:

Here is why all 5 year olds, barring a recommendation or diagnosis from a doctor should be required to attend school.

"In early childhood classrooms, where a month or two age difference can make a big difference, teachers perceive the youngest children in the class as having more attention struggles, and behavioral struggles, than the older children, irrespective of the child’s actual age.”

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/10/469929700/a-late-birth-date-could-boost-the-risk-of-an-adhd-diagnosis

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/03/youngest-kids-in-the-class-get-adhd-diagnoses.html

I don't get it. There is going to be a group of children that is the youngest, whether or not every child starts "on time". So this research is not relevant. Is there a study that shows that the likelihood of the youngest children in the class to be diagnosed with ADHD increases as the proportion of children in the class who started kindergarten a year late increases?

Next we'll be describing kids who will turn 7 in kindergarten as "almost 8". There's an almost-8-year-old in kindergarten!1!!!1!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:K teacher here. i had two or three 7 year olds in my K class last year

Did their age benefit them academically or behaviorally? Or was it a detriment?

I am more curious about how having kids who should be second grade in kindergarten impacted the five year olds who were correctly placed according to their ages.

Here is why all 5 year olds, barring a recommendation or diagnosis from a doctor should be required to attend school.

"In early childhood classrooms, where a month or two age difference can make a big difference, teachers perceive the youngest children in the class as having more attention struggles, and behavioral struggles, than the older children, irrespective of the child’s actual age.”


http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/10/469929700/a-late-birth-date-could-boost-the-risk-of-an-adhd-diagnosis

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/03/youngest-kids-in-the-class-get-adhd-diagnoses.html