Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why should there be a hard and fast rule? If I were in charge, I'd have a general cut-off, but kids within, say, 4 weeks of the cut-off in either direction could choose to go ahead or stay back.

My child's birthday is 4 days before the cut-off and she was much too socially immature to handle being the youngest. I have a friend whose child's birthday is 3 days after the cut-off and he was socially and academically advanced and should have started a year before he did. Neither child was well served by a hard and fast cut-off.

I agree with this opinion. Hard and fast rule, with room for deviations on either side of cut off. Plus I would add an appeal process for special exceptions- which would account for children who genuinely have a medical or social reason that has been diagnosed but someone other than Dr. Mom.

As many people have said, kids with genuine medical or social issues are almost certainly going to school on time. They need the therapies and support offered in school. And waiting a year isn't going to magically make their issues go away - good education and good therapy might.

Anonymous wrote:

Why isn't the parental claim of immaturity not enough? Do you think that you are a better judge of the child's maturity than the child's parent?[i] Also, why do you care? If you think that it actually gives the child an advantage, then you, too, have the option to redshirt. Or, if you think that it doesn't give the child an advantage, then it really shouldn't matter to you at all if a different parent makes a choice for their child that you personally disagree with.

What I don't understand is why a parental claim of immaturity is enough to redshirt, but a parental claim of advanced maturity isn't enough to start early. And early entrance opportunities are limited to 6 weeks, when even allowing for "summer birthdays" only, redshirting covers a full 25% of the year.

I feel like it should be the same for starting early or starting late. For example, have a buffer (one month or 6 weeks seems reasonable to me). If you are within that buffer, parents can make the call. Otherwise, stick to the dates. But it should be a small buffer and it should be the same process for starting early or starting late.

I would actually be all in favor of ability grouping rather than age grouping. And I would love legit multi-age classrooms. But if the schools is going to say that they can handle all kids of a certain age are in a certain classroom, and then the school will differentiate and support, they should actually stick to that line of reasoning across the board.\

Why do I care? Eh. I don't really care all that much. I have an April birthday boy in 1st grade and he's doing just fine. But it's an anonymous forum the internet. People comment on all sorts of things that don't directly effect their day to day lives.

My son is an August birthday and I did not redshirt him. He's in second grade now, and I really regret it. He is one of the most academically advanced kids in his class, but he really struggles socially. All of his close friends from school (through aftercare and soccer) are a grade below him. Kids in his own class get frustrated with him because he's more prone to cry, and not as good at negotiating social conflict.

It makes sense to me that there would be a 1 month allowance on either side of a cutoff. More than that and you need some special note.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are not a troll, OP, you are a dum dum.

Thanks for the mature and enlightening response.

But still, you responded!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why should there be a hard and fast rule? If I were in charge, I'd have a general cut-off, but kids within, say, 4 weeks of the cut-off in either direction could choose to go ahead or stay back.

My child's birthday is 4 days before the cut-off and she was much too socially immature to handle being the youngest. I have a friend whose child's birthday is 3 days after the cut-off and he was socially and academically advanced and should have started a year before he did. Neither child was well served by a hard and fast cut-off.

I agree with this opinion. Hard and fast rule, with room for deviations on either side of cut off. Plus I would add an appeal process for special exceptions- which would account for children who genuinely have a medical or social reason that has been diagnosed but someone other than Dr. Mom.

If there is room for deviations on either side of the cut-off (plus an appeal process for special exceptions), then it is not a hard and fast rule.

Anonymous wrote:But why should there be a hard and fast rule? If I were in charge, I'd have a general cut-off, but kids within, say, 4 weeks of the cut-off in either direction could choose to go ahead or stay back.

My child's birthday is 4 days before the cut-off and she was much too socially immature to handle being the youngest. I have a friend whose child's birthday is 3 days after the cut-off and he was socially and academically advanced and should have started a year before he did. Neither child was well served by a hard and fast cut-off.

I agree with this opinion. Hard and fast rule, with room for deviations on either side of cut off. Plus I would add an appeal process for special exceptions- which would account for children who genuinely have a medical or social reason that has been diagnosed but someone other than Dr. Mom.

Anonymous wrote:A question for OP -- do you also disagree with kids starting "early" if they have a late birthday, but are otherwise ready?

Because rules are rules, right? They should be hard and fast! No exceptions!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Basically every kid at my child's preschool that is being redshirted has no real reason to be. They are big, perfectly academically and socially prepared. The parents just wanted advantage. I agree with OP that there need to be stricter rules. A vague claim of immaturity is not enough.

Why isn't the parental claim of immaturity not enough? Do you think that you are a better judge of the child's maturity than the child's parent? Also, why do you care? If you think that it actually gives the child an advantage, then you, too, have the option to redshirt. Or, if you think that it doesn't give the child an advantage, then it really shouldn't matter to you at all if a different parent makes a choice for their child that you personally disagree with.

I don't know that, for the individual child, it's an advantage or disadvantage. But it skews the ebtire classroom older and more mature. For on-time children of average or below-average maturity, they have mature examples to emulate, a benefit, and look even less mature than they actually are, a cost.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Basically every kid at my child's preschool that is being redshirted has no real reason to be. They are big, perfectly academically and socially prepared. The parents just wanted advantage. I agree with OP that there need to be stricter rules. A vague claim of immaturity is not enough.

Why isn't the parental claim of immaturity not enough? Do you think that you are a better judge of the child's maturity than the child's parent? Also, why do you care? If you think that it actually gives the child an advantage, then you, too, have the option to redshirt. Or, if you think that it doesn't give the child an advantage, then it really shouldn't matter to you at all if a different parent makes a choice for their child that you personally disagree with.

You are obviously so determined to defend your choice to red shirt that you're missing the point of the thread. I'm not the OP by the way. The point is that a - immaturity isn't necessarily a reason that children should be allowed to get an extra year before K and b - a lot of parents don't actually believe their child is immature – they just don't want them to be one of the youngest. Where does it end? Soon we will have 25-year-old high school seniors with parents bragging that they outdid the 17-year-olds.

My choice to redshirt? I'm the PP you're responding to, and I sent one child on time and one child early.

The point is: if you don't think that immaturity should be a reason, then work to change the rules.

Also, how do you know whether or not the parents truly believe that the child is immature?

And where does it end? Where it ends. There are no 25-year-old high school seniors. If there ever are any, we can worry about that then.

A question for OP -- do you also disagree with kids starting "early" if they have a late birthday, but are otherwise ready?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Basically every kid at my child's preschool that is being redshirted has no real reason to be. They are big, perfectly academically and socially prepared. The parents just wanted advantage. I agree with OP that there need to be stricter rules. A vague claim of immaturity is not enough.

Why isn't the parental claim of immaturity not enough? Do you think that you are a better judge of the child's maturity than the child's parent? Also, why do you care? If you think that it actually gives the child an advantage, then you, too, have the option to redshirt. Or, if you think that it doesn't give the child an advantage, then it really shouldn't matter to you at all if a different parent makes a choice for their child that you personally disagree with.

You are obviously so determined to defend your choice to red shirt that you're missing the point of the thread. I'm not the OP by the way. The point is that a - immaturity isn't necessarily a reason that children should be allowed to get an extra year before K and b - a lot of parents don't actually believe their child is immature – they just don't want them to be one of the youngest. Where does it end? Soon we will have 25-year-old high school seniors with parents bragging that they outdid the 17-year-olds.

Anonymous wrote:Basically every kid at my child's preschool that is being redshirted has no real reason to be. They are big, perfectly academically and socially prepared. The parents just wanted advantage. I agree with OP that there need to be stricter rules. A vague claim of immaturity is not enough.

Why isn't the parental claim of immaturity not enough? Do you think that you are a better judge of the child's maturity than the child's parent? Also, why do you care? If you think that it actually gives the child an advantage, then you, too, have the option to redshirt. Or, if you think that it doesn't give the child an advantage, then it really shouldn't matter to you at all if a different parent makes a choice for their child that you personally disagree with.

The joke is on them when the advantage disappears after 3rd grade and the kid is the dumbest oldest kid in the class because they weren't pushed intellectually

Basically every kid at my child's preschool that is being redshirted has no real reason to be. They are big, perfectly academically and socially prepared. The parents just wanted advantage. I agree with OP that there need to be stricter rules. A vague claim of immaturity is not enough.