Anonymous wrote:I started school early, because my mom didnt want to pay for childcare...but thats another topic for another thread. Anyway, I TURNED 5 in the first few months of first grade. Then I skipped into third grade. So I was 13 in my freshman year of high school.

It was hard to make close friends. A lot of people saw me as and treated me like a little kid. My friends were driving. They had a different frame of reference.

But worst of all was that when I graduated at 16, I had NO idea who I was or what to do with my life. I chose my major based on what I was like at 17. I didnt know to look ahead. I graduated law school at 22.

Now, at 30, I know myself better. I know that I am more of a creative sort, and the law doesnt work for me. And I wish, WISH I had had more time to consider my life and who I was before I chose my career and mapped out the rest of my life. It seems like an older student would be more likely to be able to know themselves and their interests than a younger one. That extra year could be enough.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am laughing because I can't even get offended by your denial. You and I both KNOW children will be children, and they will tease and torment the other child who is much older.

By the way, I have 2 master's degrees in early child development and a PhD in Psychology, in case you think I am hallucinating!

Peace and honesty from the realist!!

Psychology consultation:

I do not follow your logic. If these older kids are red shirted (when they alledgedly shouldn't be from a developmental standpoint) then an extra year in the world alledgedly makes them more physically and intellectually developed than their younger peers ("the unfair advantage" everyone is worried about)-- primed to be leaders in the classroom and gridiron.

What will be the motive/motivation/gumption for the younger child to tease or bully the older child that is bigger, stronger, smarter and more handsome? Why wouldn't envy and adoration prevail instead?

I think I need to first let you know where I stand on the redshirting issue, so you will be more informed about my position. First, I am against redshirting, period. I feel all children should start K when they are old enough, unless they have delays, in which case maybe they should be enrolled in a different school where their needs can be more appropriately met. Redshirting does not give a child an academic advantage. I believe it hinders them in the long run, and can have negative social implications.

Also, age and looks are not relevant in this case. Handsome boys/men are handsome and pretty girls/women are pretty, whether they are 2 years older or younger. We all attended school with big jocks, so yes - age will give the children (boys in articular) a physical advantage for sports.

Really smart children that are advanced socially, emotionally, and academically will not usually admire older bigger children who are academically slow. Also, I am not predicting they will bully less smart kids. I simply know that intellect is still considered a positive thing for kids to possess, and those who have it are often able to recognize or make assumptions about others who seem to lack it in school.

Realist

I agree except for one thing. What you say condems all children with any type of delays who are held back to NEVER go to public or another private school b/c, according to you they should go to a "special" school that may meet their needs better. Needs can change. A child who maybe starts in a special school may be able to go to public or another private in the grade appropriate for them.

This whole post disgusts me really. I can see why parents of kids with more/other needs would keep quiet b/c otherwise they might be attacked by the masses who have no business or say in their childs education.

Anonymous wrote:

I think I need to first let you know where I stand on the redshirting issue, so you will be more informed about my position. First, I am against redshirting, period. I feel all children should start K when they are old enough, unless they have delays, in which case maybe they should be enrolled in a different school where their needs can be more appropriately met. Redshirting does not give a child an academic advantage. I believe it hinders them in the long run, and can have negative social implications.

Also, age and looks are not relevant in this case. Handsome boys/men are handsome and pretty girls/women are pretty, whether they are 2 years older or younger. We all attended school with big jocks, so yes - age will give the children (boys in articular) a physical advantage for sports.

Really smart children that are advanced socially, emotionally, and academically will not usually admire older bigger children who are academically slow. Also, I am not predicting they will bully less smart kids. I simply know that intellect is still considered a positive thing for kids to possess, and those who have it are often able to recognize or make assumptions about others who seem to lack it in school.

Realist

When I went to a swanky NE prep school many decades ago (from a public school) I discovered that many, perhaps upwards of 30 to 40 percent of the students were "red shirted" (whether they came from prestigious day schools in NY or Boston or public schools). They were redshirted despite, in many cases, brilliant academic records in their primary schools. In other words, they could have remained in their home schools and progressed to high school along with their peers. Instead they opted to go boarding school and marinade in a 4-year "small college-like" boarding experience.

I have come to learn, as many of my classmates have done the same for their progeny today, attending these schools preferring the "magic" about a no less than 4 year experience at some of these places related to "culture, sports, club membership and character building". To the contrary, many of my older peers were not dumb. To the contrary, today many are well accomplished in a variety of fields and will attest, down to the last man, that Harvard and Amherst after high school was a walk in the park because academic rigor peaked with their high school experience.

Today, many students (up to 20 percent) will "redshirt" or take a year off before entering college. Granted, they may be older (even perhaps wiser) than their classmates at Harvard or Amherst, but not necessarily more dumb or victimised by the younger students.

With folk living well into their 80s and 90s these days it is much more important to get a quality education. Rushing to the finish line at 17 (high school) and 21 (college) and then bouncing around from one unsatisfactory job to the next for the next 50 years is not what I would wish for any youngster. Finishing 1 or 2 (even 3) years later and having a productive, rewarding and satisfying occupation seems much more important and preferable.

In the grand scheme of things, this makes discussions, out of any context to the child, about "redshirting" before K, 9th or the undergraduate years seem superfluous in light of a potential adulthood career that may span 50 to 60 years.

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, people are resdshiritng boys!!!! It has nothing to do with anything else but trying to give them an age advantage. According to my neighbors, it will help them get bigger, faster, and more mature. How mature must one actually be to attend K and 1st grade? It is very typical in both public and private schools.

All we are asking is do not hold our children out of school based on age, if they are ready to move forward. Create a class for the reshirt crew, and let my child move on at his rapid pace. This has nothing to do with competition or fear. Why can't we accept that some humans are simply more advanced than others, and therefore, should not be stifled by the system that wants to dumb down everything and everyone?

Why are we holding back academically prepared kids (especially boys) because of age? It is wrong!!!! We do the same crap on jobs - shut down and harass smart workers.

Montgomery County Mom

As one who was 3 years younger than my classmates throughout the process from elementary school all the way to professional school I was not at any disadvantage. Leave the older kids alone and take care of your own business if you wish to succeed. We do not need other mothers and fathers to police whose kid is ready or not ready for school. Join the real world folk.

Were they held back or were you accelerated. I'm not a fan of either, I would prefer my kid to stay on grade level because there is more to school than academics and although kids might be ready academically they are probably not ready socially. 2 year age differences are huge in k, it does not matter as much in 3 grade or later. There is a big difference between a 1 and 3 yr, 3-5 year and a 5 and 7 year old. I wish the schools would allow all of these kids to move at there on pace, most of the kids will level oiut by 3 grade that would probably be true for the ones need redshirting and possibly the ones needing acceleration. Make the decision after 3rd grade, if it is the right decision and not a short term delay.

Anonymous wrote:I thought Kindergarten was supposed to help kids get ready for their future learning experiences in all-day school. In other words, I thought it was the class that set the stage for moving forward, the starting point. Why does anyone need to be "ready"? Isn't that the whole point of Kindergarten? Maybe I am a bit off here.

Anonymous wrote:Get a life!! Our child is a spring baby and was held back due to relatively unique development and maturity issues. He has never had an issue with it, and neither has any of his classmates. He now is in middle school. Get a life!!

Anonymous wrote:

I am laughing because I can't even get offended by your denial. You and I both KNOW children will be children, and they will tease and torment the other child who is much older.

By the way, I have 2 master's degrees in early child development and a PhD in Psychology, in case you think I am hallucinating!

Peace and honesty from the realist!!

Psychology consultation:

I do not follow your logic. If these older kids are red shirted (when they alledgedly shouldn't be from a developmental standpoint) then an extra year in the world alledgedly makes them more physically and intellectually developed than their younger peers ("the unfair advantage" everyone is worried about)-- primed to be leaders in the classroom and gridiron.

What will be the motive/motivation/gumption for the younger child to tease or bully the older child that is bigger, stronger, smarter and more handsome? Why wouldn't envy and adoration prevail instead?

I think I need to first let you know where I stand on the redshirting issue, so you will be more informed about my position. First, I am against redshirting, period. I feel all children should start K when they are old enough, unless they have delays, in which case maybe they should be enrolled in a different school where their needs can be more appropriately met. Redshirting does not give a child an academic advantage. I believe it hinders them in the long run, and can have negative social implications.

Also, age and looks are not relevant in this case. Handsome boys/men are handsome and pretty girls/women are pretty, whether they are 2 years older or younger. We all attended school with big jocks, so yes - age will give the children (boys in articular) a physical advantage for sports.

Really smart children that are advanced socially, emotionally, and academically will not usually admire older bigger children who are academically slow. Also, I am not predicting they will bully less smart kids. I simply know that intellect is still considered a positive thing for kids to possess, and those who have it are often able to recognize or make assumptions about others who seem to lack it in school.

Realist

As a realist and reader of biography history informs me people through the ages that have made a difference to mankind and the globe have not been the swiftest, smartest and youngest. I would never raise my children in a cocoon destined to "smooth" the Bell shape curve in favor of homogeneous ages, WPSSI scores and hypoactive children that do not "cause trouble". It's nice to have choices even if some of these choices include public schools along the way.

Anonymous wrote:

Really smart children that are advanced socially, emotionally, and academically will not usually admire older bigger children who are academically slow. Also, I am not predicting they will bully less smart kids. I simply know that intellect is still considered a positive thing for kids to possess, and those who have it are often able to recognize or make assumptions about others who seem to lack it in school.

Does not sound like the real smart kids I teach but a real dumb adult who thinks he or she knows how real smart kids behave, think and talk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When I was 5 in the first grade, I recall the older children starting to notice we were different ages. By the time we reached third grade, younger children and older children began segregating themselves, based on the fact the older children had lower scores and anwered questions more slowly in class. Without anyone ever saying it, it was clear many of the much older children were not as bright academically and they had some social shortcomings. I remember older children losing interest in school, because they were not being accomodated appropriately, too.

I see it at my daughter's school, too. Kids know who the slower, older children are; and they talk about it. Like it or not, no matter what you teach or preach at home, children have a world and life outside of you.

Realist

Did it occur to you that these kids may have been a little slower developmentally which explains why they started school later or are older than their peers? Just as some of the very young kids in classroooms tend to be more precocious and smarter (explaining why they were advanced, accelerated or plainly were ready to start school earlier)?

Or do you subscribe to the theory that starting school (brick and mortar) at a late age or being older than everyone else makes you dumber in time while the converse, if you are much younger than your peers you become smarter with time? In which case, I'll put my 3-year-old in K so she becomes smart over time.

To answer your questions very candidly - yes, yes, and no.

Peace!

Two of my closest friends have been pediatricians for decades. Their two warnings to me when I was pregnant was to watch out for educational consultants and people with advanced degrees in childhood development. I understood about the consultants, and I'm beginning yo understand about child development folks.

All of my friends who are pediatricians and primary school educators recommend redshirting, too. I will continue to disagree with them.

Really smart children that are advanced socially, emotionally, and academically will not usually admire older bigger children who are academically slow. Also, I am not predicting they will bully less smart kids. I simply know that intellect is still considered a positive thing for kids to possess, and those who have it are often able to recognize or make assumptions about others who seem to lack it in school.

I am laughing because I can't even get offended by your denial. You and I both KNOW children will be children, and they will tease and torment the other child who is much older.

By the way, I have 2 master's degrees in early child development and a PhD in Psychology, in case you think I am hallucinating!

Peace and honesty from the realist!!

Psychology consultation:

I do not follow your logic. If these older kids are red shirted (when they alledgedly shouldn't be from a developmental standpoint) then an extra year in the world alledgedly makes them more physically and intellectually developed than their younger peers ("the unfair advantage" everyone is worried about)-- primed to be leaders in the classroom and gridiron.

What will be the motive/motivation/gumption for the younger child to tease or bully the older child that is bigger, stronger, smarter and more handsome? Why wouldn't envy and adoration prevail instead?

I think I need to first let you know where I stand on the redshirting issue, so you will be more informed about my position. First, I am against redshirting, period. I feel all children should start K when they are old enough, unless they have delays, in which case maybe they should be enrolled in a different school where their needs can be more appropriately met. Redshirting does not give a child an academic advantage. I believe it hinders them in the long run, and can have negative social implications.

Also, age and looks are not relevant in this case. Handsome boys/men are handsome and pretty girls/women are pretty, whether they are 2 years older or younger. We all attended school with big jocks, so yes - age will give the children (boys in articular) a physical advantage for sports.

Really smart children that are advanced socially, emotionally, and academically will not usually admire older bigger children who are academically slow. Also, I am not predicting they will bully less smart kids. I simply know that intellect is still considered a positive thing for kids to possess, and those who have it are often able to recognize or make assumptions about others who seem to lack it in school.

Realist

Anonymous wrote:
When I was 5 in the first grade, I recall the older children starting to notice we were different ages. By the time we reached third grade, younger children and older children began segregating themselves, based on the fact the older children had lower scores and anwered questions more slowly in class. Without anyone ever saying it, it was clear many of the much older children were not as bright academically and they had some social shortcomings. I remember older children losing interest in school, because they were not being accomodated appropriately, too.

I see it at my daughter's school, too. Kids know who the slower, older children are; and they talk about it. Like it or not, no matter what you teach or preach at home, children have a world and life outside of you.

Realist