Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Unless she's huge and way ahead of her age emotionally and academically, yes I would. Maybe even if she was. I was always the youngest and smallest in school, and it totally sucked. Especially sports. As a teacher, it's true that girls suffered way less from being young than boys, but December is really pushing it. I mean, if you ever moved to another district, especially one with tons of redshirting like mine, then she'd be over a year younger than her classmates.
I was always the youngest and smallest in school, and things were fine. There, now we have two anecdotes. Actually, three anecdotes, because my kid is also the youngest and smallest, and things are fine. My kid would have been the smallest even if I had held my kid back a year.
The point is that it's just as silly to say, "It is always bad to be the youngest and smallest; hold your child back!" as it is to say, "It is never a problem to be the youngest and smallest; send your child on time!". It depends on the individual child. And what is OP's individual child going to be like at kindergarten-starting age? Nobody knows, BECAUSE OP'S CHILD IS ONE YEAR OLD.
Yes, I have heard a countless number of stories about people who were young for their grade and at the top of their class, and based on what you just said, there are also people who are old for their grade, but at the bottom of their class. However, I haven't heard a story lie that, which is rather frustrating. It would be nice to hear someone say something like, "I always struggled in school despite being redshirted," but I have yet to see a story like that. It's rather annoying really.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Unless she's huge and way ahead of her age emotionally and academically, yes I would. Maybe even if she was. I was always the youngest and smallest in school, and it totally sucked. Especially sports. As a teacher, it's true that girls suffered way less from being young than boys, but December is really pushing it. I mean, if you ever moved to another district, especially one with tons of redshirting like mine, then she'd be over a year younger than her classmates.
I was always the youngest and smallest in school, and things were fine. There, now we have two anecdotes. Actually, three anecdotes, because my kid is also the youngest and smallest, and things are fine. My kid would have been the smallest even if I had held my kid back a year.
The point is that it's just as silly to say, "It is always bad to be the youngest and smallest; hold your child back!" as it is to say, "It is never a problem to be the youngest and smallest; send your child on time!". It depends on the individual child. And what is OP's individual child going to be like at kindergarten-starting age? Nobody knows, BECAUSE OP'S CHILD IS ONE YEAR OLD.
Anonymous wrote:absolutely would. when she starts college at 17 it matters.
Anonymous wrote:Unless she's huge and way ahead of her age emotionally and academically, yes I would. Maybe even if she was. I was always the youngest and smallest in school, and it totally sucked. Especially sports. As a teacher, it's true that girls suffered way less from being young than boys, but December is really pushing it. I mean, if you ever moved to another district, especially one with tons of redshirting like mine, then she'd be over a year younger than her classmates.
Anonymous wrote:Do you guys think there will be any issues when her 4 year old class goes on to K and she has to stay in an extra preK year and then goes to public school with her preschool friends in 1st grade and she's in K? the reason to hold back now would be for that...
Anonymous wrote:Thanks everyone. Op here. yes. I am concerned she will go to college with kids 18 months older (some kids who hold back for summer birthdays with 9/1 cut off and she's late December birthday).
In reality, all I am really focused on now is whether to repeat two's year of preschool under the assumption that there is no way I'd send a late December birthday to kindergarten and if we're definitely holding her back is it better to repeat two's, OR, go ahead and then do an extra pre-K year and the assumption would be that that's a good choice because we preserve the option to choose to send her to K that young and also, I feel that there's a big developmental gap between the older 2's and younger 2's, so holding her back at 2 she will be around much less developed toddlers, whereas by 4/5 the gaps aren't as much.
Anonymous wrote:Do you guys think there will be any issues when her 4 year old class goes on to K and she has to stay in an extra preK year and then goes to public school with her preschool friends in 1st grade and she's in K? the reason to hold back now would be for that...
Anonymous wrote:She's 1 but we have to decide this upcoming year whether to repeat twos or go ahead to threes and possibly repeat the extra pre K year