Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I waited to send my son to K just after he turned 6 (Aug bday) based on all the research that delaying formal school has lifelong benefits for kids' brains, including their mental health. This is a perfectly legitimate choice, allowed by our school system, and I find it odd that's it considered so offensive to some other parents. We all make what we think are the best decisions for our kids and our families, within the rules.

For those interested, here's just one of the arguments supporting later K: http://qz.com/546832/stanford-researchers-show-were-sending-many-children-to-school-way-too-early/

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/youngest-kid-smartest-kid

But there are also studies that show it might not be the best idea:

"When a group of economists followed Norwegian children born between 1962 and 1988, until the youngest turned eighteen, in 2006, they found that, at age eighteen, children who started school a year later had I.Q. scores that were significantly lower than their younger counterparts. Their earnings also suffered: through age thirty, men who started school later earned less."

I don't care what you do but just stop with the quotes from the mainstream media when the actual research is easy to find and not nearly so exaggerated or taken out of context. Hint: that study you are quoting doesn't actually support your point.

Importantly, there is variation in the mapping between year and month of birth and the year the test is taken, allowing us to distinguish the effects of school starting age from pure age effects. We find evidence for a small positive effect of starting school younger on IQ scores measured at age 18. In contrast, we find evidence of much larger positive effects of age at test, and these results are very robust.

First, much research has shown a consistent pattern that children who start school at older ages tend to score higher on in-school tests. The second broad conclusion in the literature is that, when tested at the same age, very young children score better on in-school tests if they started school younger and hence have spent more time in school. These findings suggest that school starting age may have significant effects on the outcomes of adults. In this paper we find that this is, for the most part, not the case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I waited to send my son to K just after he turned 6 (Aug bday) based on all the research that delaying formal school has lifelong benefits for kids' brains, including their mental health. This is a perfectly legitimate choice, allowed by our school system, and I find it odd that's it considered so offensive to some other parents. We all make what we think are the best decisions for our kids and our families, within the rules.

For those interested, here's just one of the arguments supporting later K: http://qz.com/546832/stanford-researchers-show-were-sending-many-children-to-school-way-too-early/

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/youngest-kid-smartest-kid

But there are also studies that show it might not be the best idea:

"When a group of economists followed Norwegian children born between 1962 and 1988, until the youngest turned eighteen, in 2006, they found that, at age eighteen, children who started school a year later had I.Q. scores that were significantly lower than their younger counterparts. Their earnings also suffered: through age thirty, men who started school later earned less."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I waited to send my son to K just after he turned 6 (Aug bday) based on all the research that delaying formal school has lifelong benefits for kids' brains, including their mental health. This is a perfectly legitimate choice, allowed by our school system, and I find it odd that's it considered so offensive to some other parents. We all make what we think are the best decisions for our kids and our families, within the rules.

For those interested, here's just one of the arguments supporting later K: http://qz.com/546832/stanford-researchers-show-were-sending-many-children-to-school-way-too-early/

So....when your child was in 2nd grade, were you complaining about how the school "just can't meet Larlo's needs" and how "he's just so much more advanced than his peers?"

If not, you're not the person this rant was aimed at.

Of course she will be. She just isn't there yet. 2.0 curriculum is so dumbed down a 3yr old could do the K curriculum. NO LIE. My child is in 1st and is doing basic math facts that she learned in preschool. She is a late Aug birthday and I could not imagine her in K but I could easily see her in 2nd.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter is 10 months older than the youngest kids in her class because she has a late-October birthday. It's been a struggle to keep her challenged.

Most of the boys I know who were red-shirted just weren't ready socially/emotionally for kindergarten at age barely-5. they were bright kids, and not small, but I can see why their parents made the choice they did.

So twenty years ago everyone was "socially/emotionally" ready for K and now suddenly we are raising a bunch of immature little kids? Nope. It's the parents who have their issues that are putting them on their poor little kids.

20 years ago, kindergarten was learning A B Cs and still playing house. I had half day kindergarten (30 years ago). I also had 3 days a week of PE, not 1, and twice daily recess. My child is in K now and they're expected to read and write and do basic math--they're also expected to sit a LOT. One day of PE a week and a 30 minute daily recess. Thankfully he can hack it academically, but he is immature (spring birthday) and has gotten into trouble here and there--he probably wouldn't have gotten into that trouble if he weren't so tired or didn't have to stare at worksheets so much. Putting academic pressures onto children at an early age can set them up to be frustrated learners in the future. I don't think the solution is to red shirt, I think it's to go back to the days where kids played more in kindergarten.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I waited to send my son to K just after he turned 6 (Aug bday) based on all the research that delaying formal school has lifelong benefits for kids' brains, including their mental health. This is a perfectly legitimate choice, allowed by our school system, and I find it odd that's it considered so offensive to some other parents. We all make what we think are the best decisions for our kids and our families, within the rules.

For those interested, here's just one of the arguments supporting later K: http://qz.com/546832/stanford-researchers-show-were-sending-many-children-to-school-way-too-early/

So....when your child was in 2nd grade, were you complaining about how the school "just can't meet Larlo's needs" and how "he's just so much more advanced than his peers?"

If not, you're not the person this rant was aimed at.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter is 10 months older than the youngest kids in her class because she has a late-October birthday. It's been a struggle to keep her challenged.

Most of the boys I know who were red-shirted just weren't ready socially/emotionally for kindergarten at age barely-5. they were bright kids, and not small, but I can see why their parents made the choice they did.

So twenty years ago everyone was "socially/emotionally" ready for K and now suddenly we are raising a bunch of immature little kids? Nope. It's the parents who have their issues that are putting them on their poor little kids.

20 years ago, kindergarten was learning A B Cs and still playing house. I had half day kindergarten (30 years ago). I also had 3 days a week of PE, not 1, and twice daily recess. My child is in K now and they're expected to read and write and do basic math--they're also expected to sit a LOT. One day of PE a week and a 30 minute daily recess. Thankfully he can hack it academically, but he is immature (spring birthday) and has gotten into trouble here and there--he probably wouldn't have gotten into that trouble if he weren't so tired or didn't have to stare at worksheets so much. Putting academic pressures onto children at an early age can set them up to be frustrated learners in the future. I don't think the solution is to red shirt, I think it's to go back to the days where kids played more in kindergarten.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I waited to send my son to K just after he turned 6 (Aug bday) based on all the research that delaying formal school has lifelong benefits for kids' brains, including their mental health. This is a perfectly legitimate choice, allowed by our school system, and I find it odd that's it considered so offensive to some other parents. We all make what we think are the best decisions for our kids and our families, within the rules.

For those interested, here's just one of the arguments supporting later K: http://qz.com/546832/stanford-researchers-show-were-sending-many-children-to-school-way-too-early/

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/youngest-kid-smartest-kid

But there are also studies that show it might not be the best idea:

"When a group of economists followed Norwegian children born between 1962 and 1988, until the youngest turned eighteen, in 2006, they found that, at age eighteen, children who started school a year later had I.Q. scores that were significantly lower than their younger counterparts. Their earnings also suffered: through age thirty, men who started school later earned less."

Anonymous wrote:I waited to send my son to K just after he turned 6 (Aug bday) based on all the research that delaying formal school has lifelong benefits for kids' brains, including their mental health. This is a perfectly legitimate choice, allowed by our school system, and I find it odd that's it considered so offensive to some other parents. We all make what we think are the best decisions for our kids and our families, within the rules.

For those interested, here's just one of the arguments supporting later K: http://qz.com/546832/stanford-researchers-show-were-sending-many-children-to-school-way-too-early/

Anonymous wrote:

We're just saying... if you choose to redshirt for whatever reason, just don't complain your child is not being challenged.

This right here. If you choose to redshirt, then don't be surprised when the instruction is pitched at a level for the actual 5 year-olds in the class.

Anonymous wrote:I waited to send my son to K just after he turned 6 (Aug bday) based on all the research that delaying formal school has lifelong benefits for kids' brains, including their mental health. This is a perfectly legitimate choice, allowed by our school system, and I find it odd that's it considered so offensive to some other parents. We all make what we think are the best decisions for our kids and our families, within the rules.

For those interested, here's just one of the arguments supporting later K: http://qz.com/546832/stanford-researchers-show-were-sending-many-children-to-school-way-too-early/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter is 10 months older than the youngest kids in her class because she has a late-October birthday. It's been a struggle to keep her challenged.

Most of the boys I know who were red-shirted just weren't ready socially/emotionally for kindergarten at age barely-5. they were bright kids, and not small, but I can see why their parents made the choice they did.

So twenty years ago everyone was "socially/emotionally" ready for K and now suddenly we are raising a bunch of immature little kids? Nope. It's the parents who have their issues that are putting them on their poor little kids.