Anonymous wrote:OP, if her preschool teachers say that she's ready, then send her on time.

+1

Most people hold boys back for athletic reasons. They won't admit it but they do.

Yes, PP, This social difference is why my DD (7) prefers to play w/ the boys. They just run around and tussle and have a good oil' time. She likewise is very accepting, and takes people as they are. Unfortunately, many boys start to think that girls have cooties about this age, so she is often stuck with girls. Girls may be more "socially mature" but who also can be quite mean!

Anonymous wrote:
Honestly, I think there's a lot of gender stereotyping at play when folks ask these sorts of questions. Boys may Generally have a harder time sitting still. Girls may generally be more mature. It's up to the parent to know their child, of course. When it's close to the cut-off, the gut reaction from most people is to give the boy another year, send the girl. [/b]I can't help but feel that there's a undertone that Girls apparently don't need to be leaders. stronger, or perform better in class.[b] Sitting still is sufficient.

Really? The gender-stereotyping impression I get is that people think boys need the extra edge of another year in order to be able to compete with the girls, who are just naturally good at school.

I get what the first poster is saying and agree. Its subtle but people do worry more about whether a boy is considered a leader, the strongest, the fastest, or able to compete. Girls don't need to be leaders just mature enough to sit still and take direction.

After having both a boy and girl, I've been surprised that social maturity seems to have a greater affect on girls. My son and his friends are accepting of all kids that have the same interests. They run around with younger and older kids that have various level of social maturity. Its all about Star Wars and kicking the ball. The girls are far more exclusionary and the ones that are more mature, hit social development sooner can be brutal to the more immature younger girls that haven't caught up yet.

I've seen other gender stereotyping in school too. Teachers seem to recognize math skills in boys more than girls and writing skills in girls more than boys. My kids reverse the genes stereotyping and I've been surprised how teachers want to shift them back toward their gender based expectations.

That's an interesting flip of perspective. Thanks for sharing it.

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, I think there's a lot of gender stereotyping at play when folks ask these sorts of questions. Boys may Generally have a harder time sitting still. Girls may generally be more mature. It's up to the parent to know their child, of course. When it's close to the cut-off, the gut reaction from most people is to give the boy another year, send the girl. [/b]I can't help but feel that there's a undertone that Girls apparently don't need to be leaders. stronger, or perform better in class.[b] Sitting still is sufficient.

Really? The gender-stereotyping impression I get is that people think boys need the extra edge of another year in order to be able to compete with the girls, who are just naturally good at school.

Honestly, I think there's a lot of gender stereotyping at play when folks ask these sorts of questions. Boys may Generally have a harder time sitting still. Girls may generally be more mature. It's up to the parent to know their child, of course. When it's close to the cut-off, the gut reaction from most people is to give the boy another year, send the girl. I can't help but feel that there's a undertone that Girls apparently don't need to be leaders. stronger, or perform better in class. Sitting still is sufficient.

Anonymous wrote:

No, I think the teacher purposely lowered her reading level to gradually show some type of improvement as the year progressed because they can only max at certain points now. What they were reading in groups was so simple for her. She was reading simple chapter books during K and moved to Junie B Jones by Christmas. They were reading "Dick and Jane" type books/comprehension in reading group and she was marked so far below her Pre-K ready level from Montessori. I paid no mind to it but it was a little humorous that they had to prove she improved by K standards I guess. Sad thing is there are so many kids that aren't even reading yet towards the end of K. Barely know the sounds letters make. There is no way I would hold my child back. If your kid is in preschool, Kindergarten is a breeze.

Did you try asking her the reading comprehension questions she was getting in kindergarten? I know from experience that there is a big difference between being able to read and enjoy books and being able to answer reading comprehension questions about them.

No, I think the teacher purposely lowered her reading level to gradually show some type of improvement as the year progressed because they can only max at certain points now. What they were reading in groups was so simple for her. She was reading simple chapter books during K and moved to Junie B Jones by Christmas. They were reading "Dick and Jane" type books/comprehension in reading group and she was marked so far below her Pre-K ready level from Montessori. I paid no mind to it but it was a little humorous that they had to prove she improved by K standards I guess.

I wondered if this is happening at our school this year too. This is basically cheating but I guess cheating is fine if MCPS does it.

Why would you hold her back? She is making the cut off, she does not have to take Early Entrance to Kindergarten test like many September born kids, so I fail to see the reluctance. There will be kids who will be a month older and a month younger than her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They may have started there, while conducting the month of individual assessments, but the description of letters, shapes and counting to 100 is an unfair characterization of the year of K curriculum, for any level actually, but especially for those who came in already reading.

My daughter's reading level did not change in my opinion. It was lowered in the beginning of the year and gradually increased to what she really was at the beginning of the year. She was reading Nate the Great books in K and they dumbed her down.

Your daughter's reading got worse in kindergarten?

No, I think the teacher purposely lowered her reading level to gradually show some type of improvement as the year progressed because they can only max at certain points now. What they were reading in groups was so simple for her. She was reading simple chapter books during K and moved to Junie B Jones by Christmas. They were reading "Dick and Jane" type books/comprehension in reading group and she was marked so far below her Pre-K ready level from Montessori. I paid no mind to it but it was a little humorous that they had to prove she improved by K standards I guess. Sad thing is there are so many kids that aren't even reading yet towards the end of K. Barely know the sounds letters make. There is no way I would hold my child back. If your kid is in preschool, Kindergarten is a breeze.