There is no rush (as another PP asked). And I'd never really want my kid to skip a grade once she was in school. But, we did EEK for several reasons. She had been in daycare since age 1. Another year of preschool would have led to sheer boredom in my opinion! Three years of preschool? (I don't count that first year - that was more just 'daycare'.) That would have been unnecessary.

Anonymous wrote:She will be at an advantage being one of the older kids in the grade. It's much better to be one of the oldest than one of the youngest. What's the hurry?

I disagree completely. My kid is the youngest and when he was in a mixed age preschool, he did so much better in a classroom of kids that were older than him (versus in a classroom where most of the kids were younger).

PP, I wanted to add something else, no matter what you decide to do you may not feel every year of elementary school that your child is progressing as much as you think he/she should. There is an overall question of how good the teacher is and also how good the teacher is with your child and managing the classroom he/she has. There could also be things out of the teacher's control like learning a new curriculum and not enough training/resources. So you may not be happy all the time or every year. It's normally an issue if two years in a row your child has been bored or not progressing at a decent pace.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is one potential year of boredom in one area should not be the sole reason for a life altering decision. Even if your child isn't so far ahead, you can be dealing with boredom if the teacher isn't effective for your child due to whatever reason. You can also argue that the teacher that is the most effective for your child should be able to deal with the higher reading level unless your child is so outside the norm and there are restrictions placed on what the teacher can accommodate.

Thanks PP for the article.

I thought this was most interesting...

"It matters very much who a child’s peers are. Redshirted children begin school with others who are a little further behind them. Because learning is social, the real winners in that situation are their classmates. "

OP, it really doesn't matter. Had she been born a few weeks later you would have no choice. You can go either way. Put her where you thinks she fits socially.

Academics are not important in kindergarten and should not be a factor. There are many 3-year-olds that are reading better than your DD, and there are 2nd graders who haven't clicked yet. That is not how we group kids in the early grades, because it is not important.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No.

Kindergarten is never boring.

It is the best grade of the entire school career. Why would anyone want their kid to pass that year?

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that some kids really have that drive and thirst for knowledge early on? It's not about rushing. Instead, it's about listening to your child and being their advocate. How many times does a person have to say, "Each child is different." Don't be a hater or be so quick to criticize just because you don't believe or don't relate.

Because I can now say as a parent of a 3rd grader, that those advanced kids change so much once there is real skill and initiative needed.

It is really true that it evens out by 3rd grade. Kids that read themselves chapter books in K mean nothing.

So the advanced kids become slow or average and then the slow ones become geniuses. Does that make you feel better to make those generalizations? Ok. Way to go, mom.

The advanced kids were not really advanced and being able to read in K is not the same as reding in 3rd grade. Also, the realization of their acting out is not from their brilliancy and boredom but from impulse control issues, add issues, etc..

Indeed. Mea culpa. They are not advanced....they are the ones who have been messed up by the futile and damaging efforts of their wannabe proactive parents. Gosh, we would have been better off just having our kids sit and color or sit in a grocery cart mindlessly until they get taught by the proper authorities in a class size of 20+ kids with one teacher and no assistant. This thread has been so insightful.

Anonymous wrote:She will be at an advantage being one of the older kids in the grade. It's much better to be one of the oldest than one of the youngest. What's the hurry?

It is? Why?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/opinion/sunday/dont-delay-your-kindergartners-start.html?_r=0

She will be at an advantage being one of the older kids in the grade. It's much better to be one of the oldest than one of the youngest. What's the hurry?

Anonymous wrote:My DS is September born. He took the Early Entrance test and I have not regretted him being in school with his peers.

Birthdays are a challenge though, because they do not know many kids when the new school year starts. Apart from that - no regrets. Do not waste a year.

One of my children did EEK, and we haven't regretted it at all.

However, there are surely people who are thinking, "You haven't regretted it YET. Just wait." And if other people then say, "But I started early, and I'm grown-up now, and I still haven't regretted it," they respond, "But that's not relevant, because things were different then."

Anonymous wrote:Mom of a 4 year old here, who is reading. I think there are plenty of kids, like mine, who were simply interested in learning letters or reading words at ages 2,3,4. I believe in following my child's lead and supporting their interests--not waiting for whatever curriculum. It's funny because I often feel judged by friends who assume I'm pushing him, when it's the opposite.

Yes, I taught my child letters. And phonics. And bought early readers so he could start reading. He was interested! He was pointing to letters and words at age 2-3 and wanting to know about them! Any decent parent would support that interest.

+1

Mom of a 4 year old here, who is reading. I think there are plenty of kids, like mine, who were simply interested in learning letters or reading words at ages 2,3,4. I believe in following my child's lead and supporting their interests--not waiting for whatever curriculum. It's funny because I often feel judged by friends who assume I'm pushing him, when it's the opposite.

Yes, I taught my child letters. And phonics. And bought early readers so he could start reading. He was interested! He was pointing to letters and words at age 2-3 and wanting to know about them! Any decent parent would support that interest.

My DS is September born. He took the Early Entrance test and I have not regretted him being in school with his peers.

Birthdays are a challenge though, because they do not know many kids when the new school year starts. Apart from that - no regrets. Do not waste a year.

I agree with PP. Parents should be involved with their child's education and teach throughout the day (or in short spurts) if it's comfortable to them.

I don't get teachers like this. Why not encourage parental involvement? If you don't like the methods, then suggest some that are better.

Parents want their kids going into school feeling comfortable and confident. Many parents see preschool and kindergarten more as social skill building.

It seems that the goals of parents, teachers and administrators aren't always the same.

We explore and play... PLENTY. That's what makes the 5 minutes here and there of writing letters on a chart board fun. It's usually part of the play... what letter am I writing (and kid has to guess letter before I finish it).

It would be nice if there was a way to align your learning priorities for your child with the teacher philosophy as much as the school's philosophy (Montessori, etc.) The teacher's philosophy (which sometimes is like the school ans sometimes not) is way more important.

Anonymous wrote:I'm the teacher. You would be surprised at the kids who " learned" to read because mom spent hours with them on sounds and letters instead of helping them learn to build, explore, and play.

What in the world??

I'm sorry, OP, for going OT, but this post really bugs me.

PP, it takes hours to teach a kid to read whether that kid is 3 or whether that kid is 6. What is the difference?
Like PPs mentioned, there is plenty of time in a day to spend 20 minutes teaching your 3 year old sounds and letters AND let them build/explore/play.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No.

Kindergarten is never boring.

It is the best grade of the entire school career. Why would anyone want their kid to pass that year?

Why is it so hard for some people to understand that some kids really have that drive and thirst for knowledge early on? It's not about rushing. Instead, it's about listening to your child and being their advocate. How many times does a person have to say, "Each child is different." Don't be a hater or be so quick to criticize just because you don't believe or don't relate.

Because I can now say as a parent of a 3rd grader, that those advanced kids change so much once there is real skill and initiative needed.

It is really true that it evens out by 3rd grade. Kids that read themselves chapter books in K mean nothing.

So the advanced kids become slow or average and then the slow ones become geniuses. Does that make you feel better to make those generalizations? Ok. Way to go, mom.

The advanced kids were not really advanced and being able to read in K is not the same as reding in 3rd grade. Also, the realization of their acting out is not from their brilliancy and boredom but from impulse control issues, add issues, etc..