School deleaying - "redshirting". - Page 5

[kate42]

DD has a mid-August birthday and ended up being the youngest child in her kindergarten class. We had more than one neighbor parent suggest that we keep her home for another year. Why? Not because DD was behind socially or developmentally, but because she was advanced. And DD's developmental readiness for school was very apparent as she started spontaneously reading at 3.

On our street, there were five kindergarten kids living right in a row...one in our house, twins next door, one in the next house and another next to her. It was way too easy for parents to compare their children against those of the neighbors. Not the best thing to do, but human nature, I guess?

A very competitive queen-bee type mom told me that DD should start "late" because it wouldn't be fair to the older kids that she was the smartest and youngest in class and it would hurt their (and by their, she meant her own daughter's) self-esteem. She asked me to consider the other kids' feelings before making our decision. That lay a lot of guilt on my shoulders, let me tell you!

One of the dads wanted to delay school for his son so he would be bigger for sports once he hit third or fourth grade.

DH and I briefly considered delaying school entry for DD because of her age, but realized that it would be too detrimental to her intellectual development. She needed to go to school. I think homeschooling is great, but it's not something I could do on my own. DD needed to be in a classroom setting after two years of nursery school.

I totally see it from both sides. There truly are children who benefit from that "extra" year if they don't start at five. But there are also those who would flounder if they couldn't get the academic stimulation that they need. I don't think that anyone really should concern themselves with what other parents do!

But having said that, I find myself somewhat concerned about the fact that since DD started "on-time" and some kids did not, that there are several children in her class that are up to a year and a half older than her. Academically, they may be on the same page but socially it's a huge difference. Then again, other parents may be concerned that my DD is so young.

And I do have to say, I find the whole "bigger for sports" argument ridiculous and potentially harmful. What if your kid just doesn't want to play sports??

[aslyn]

I think we push academics way to young on our kids. When I was a kid starting at 5 meant you started early. There is a such a variation between states of what the K cut-off is. Someone else posted if you keep them home another put them in 1st where they belong. When we enrolled my son in ps we werent given an option, he was put in K. We were in another state at the time, and now hes older in 1st grade then most of his class and his reading is more advanced, but his math and handwriting are on grade level. He belongs where he is. His teacher is well aware of his reading level and helps him find more challenging material for take home reading.

On the bully topic..my kid is no bully, his K & 1st grade teachers have both remarked on how he will go out of his way to help struggling students. He does this at home with my DD as well, and my 4 yr old..Other younger kids in his class, are much more immature 1 kid runs around the class screaming and has been to the principals office everyday this school year. I don't know the particualrs on that kid, and it's not my business but how fair is it to the other kids or the teacher for 1 kid to start acting up during a lesson? I think we ALL know how that goes-1 starts getting wild they all get wild.

I really think it is unfair for some of the remarks here that those who waited are being unfair to people who may not have the resources to do so. My kids have never been to preschool or daycare, but not because I had the resources to do that..because we have sacrificed to make sure that 1 of us was always home with them. This is part of our family values. I don't think I am better than anyone else; for us it is important..We sacrifice everyday to make sure we can afford the basic stuff in life (food,clothing,shelter) we don't have cable tv, or cell phones,or a car....none of that stuff is all that important to us, for us its more important to give our kids a solid home life and for our family to be close. I realize for some people that is not a possibility, and I don't knock anyone for the choices they make..but it goes both ways.

ETA: on the sports thing, my son hates to play sports...he watches football, but he has told me time and time again gym class is not his thing.

[bandgeek]

We aren't sending DS this year because I feel he isn't ready. Academically he's fine, but behaviorally....ehhhh...he's a little boy and he needs to run and play and get out that energy. He was called "particularly active" by his doctor and I just KNOW they will try to label him in school and I just don't feel like dealing with that. We are teaching him at home. We may put him in school next year but we'll play it by ear. I always intended to homeschool, but our circumstances have changed and I'm not sure it will be possible in the higher grades. For now, I'm keeping him home.

What's funny is everyone's reaction to this news. Everyone asks if he's in K. When I explain that we've decided to keep him home this year they all assume we are delaying K. In reality, we will put him in whatever grade level is appropriate for him next year (or whenever we send him), which will most likely be grade 1. So in reality, we are not "red-shirting". But people assume. And the reactions are...interesting. Some people think it's a wonderful thing "especially for little boys". Some people think I'm depriving him of a wonderful social experience.

I find the whole thing interesting. Most people are just trying to do what's best for their kids but society labels everything. Red-shirting carries a stigma now and I find that sad. For a lot of kids, an extra year at home (whether they then go into K or 1 afterwards doesn't matter) does them a world of good. Not all kids are ready for school at age 5, just like not all babies are ready to walk at age 1, or ready to wean or potty-train at age 2.

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by newbymom05

If I kept him at home for a year, he'd be reading chapter books by 6, so what'd be the point of putting him in kindy?

I already said what the point is. It's to let them get used to school. Let them meet and play with their classmates.

Originally Posted by newbymom05

Not a "naturally" different level--they've been TAUGHT these things already.

I really don't understand surprise or disapproval of a child having been taught things before kindergarten. I started homeschooling my daughter as soon as she came out of the womb. There was no way I was *not* going to do that. It's ridiculous for someone to think that I shouldn't teach my child whatever I want to teach her. The parent is the child's primary teacher. The school is a tool used to assist in the educational process. The idea of a student being dependent on the school system to be THE source of his education is completely foreign to my mind. I remember a long time ago reading a letter to the editor in the local paper, written by a high school student. She was complaining about the SATs she had just taken. She said it wasn't fair that all those vocabulary words had been on the test. She said that, for most of the words, the definitions had not been given to them by their teachers. And I thought, what are you nuts?? It is not any teacher's job to provide you with your vocabulary! You have to READ! On your own! Books that the teacher has not told you to read!

So the teacher has to find a way to teach someone the ABC's, someone how to read the Level 2 of Bob Books, and engage someone who's capable of starting chapter books.

I'm pretty sure this has been the plight of teachers since time immemorial. Students have always come to school armed with all different levels of knowledge. Look, the school district has a certain amount of information that it is their goal to impart to students. They divide this into 13 parts. It's the kindergarten teacher's job to teach the basics. If she can also challenge the students who have already learned the basics, good for her. I'm a proponent of dividing children into different classrooms based on ability so that the most advanced students can be challenged. In any case, it's absurd to suggest that students not be taught anything outside the classroom so as not to upset the delicate balance of every child knowing exactly the same things at exactly the same time, no more, no less.

Originally Posted by dancingmama

If you feel your kid isn't ready for school when they reach school age, fine, keep them home a year. But then when they ARE ready for school, send them to the year of school they belong in! If he's six, send him to first grade.

People are completely missing the point. Why the obsession with arbitrary ages? Whether a child belongs in kindergarten or first grade has very little to do with whether they're 5 years old or six years old. Kindergarten is not defined as "a place to teach what FIVE YEAR OLDS need to know." I will send my child to whatever grade I feel is appropriate. And "school age" does not mean "4 to 5 years old." You simply can't legally put a child in kindy when they are *younger* than that (with possible exceptions). "School age" is completely subjective and is determined by each individual parent.

[newbymom05]

Originally Posted by Sustainer

I already said what the point is. It's to let them get used to school. Let them meet and play with their classmates.


I really don't understand surprise or disapproval of a child having been taught things before kindergarten. I started homeschooling my daughter as soon as she came out of the womb. There was no way I was *not* going to do that. It's ridiculous for someone to think that I shouldn't teach my child whatever I want to teach her. The parent is the child's primary teacher. The school is a tool used to assist in the educational process. The idea of a student being dependent on the school system to be THE source of his education is completely foreign to my mind. I remember a long time ago reading a letter to the editor in the local paper, written by a high school student. She was complaining about the SATs she had just taken. She said it wasn't fair that all those vocabulary words had been on the test. She said that, for most of the words, the definitions had not been given to them by their teachers. And I thought, what are you nuts?? It is not any teacher's job to provide you with your vocabulary! You have to READ! On your own! Books that the teacher has not told you to read!


I'm pretty sure this has been the plight of teachers since time immemorial. Students have always come to school armed with all different levels of knowledge. Look, the school district has a certain amount of information that it is their goal to impart to students. They divide this into 13 parts. It's the kindergarten teacher's job to teach the basics. If she can also challenge the students who have already learned the basics, good for her. I'm a proponent of dividing children into different classrooms based on ability so that the most advanced students can be challenged. In any case, it's absurd to suggest that students not be taught anything outside the classroom so as not to upset the delicate balance of every child knowing exactly the same things at exactly the same time, no more, no less.


People are completely missing the point. Why the obsession with arbitrary ages? Whether a child belongs in kindergarten or first grade has very little to do with whether they're 5 years old or six years old. Kindergarten is not defined as "a place to teach what FIVE YEAR OLDS need to know." I will send my child to whatever grade I feel is appropriate. And "school age" does not mean "4 to 5 years old." You simply can't legally put a child in kindy when they are *younger* than that (with possible exceptions). "School age" is completely subjective and is determined by each individual parent.

No one here is arguing for arbitrary age attendance. For myself, I'm arguing about readiness and ability. If your 4 y/o wants to do the kindy work, great. If your 6 y/o isn't reading and magically learned to sit still recently, great. But IF YOU'VE ALREADY GOT THE SKILL SET, GO TO THE NEXT LEVEL.

I assume you've had some college. Would you benefit from taking freshman English again? I'm sure you'd make the highest grades, be more responsible than most of your classmates, and be very successful. You'd refresh yourself on some things you forgot. But overall, it'd be a total waste of your time, not to mention the instructor's. So why would your child need to repeat what they've already learned, if not to give them an advantage over other students?

If you were in a freshman English class, chances are you'd be bored. Would it be the instructor's responsibility to challenge you and meet your advanced needs, or would it be your problem to solve, since you voluntarily chose a lower level than you were capable of?

I'm totally not buying the "time immemorial" argument, since academics beyond simple recognition in the lower grades is a recent development. Putting kids who should be at 1st grade level back to compete w/ younger kids only increases the pressure to up the academic ante--a 6 y/o is just more cognitively and developmentally capable than a child a year or more younger. That's the reason for what you call "arbitrary age obsessiveness"--the recognition that a year of development at young ages makes a big difference.

[3 little birds]

Just a quick comment-my twins that made the cutoff by one day begged to go to kindy. We sent them against our better judgement to a highly recommended charter school. They found out that everyone was bigger and some of the kids were not only not nice, but mean. They cried everyday. They stopped talking to children spontaneously when we were out, as they had done before("Oh look, a new friend. chatter, chatter, chatter" to all the children they came across). They came to believe that boys were better than girls. They failed the year end standardized test and it was recommended that they repeat grade K. Their teacher told me that they just weren't mature enough yet. We switched to a Montessori school and the director told me that the parents that choose to delay kindergarten tend to be very satisfied with their decisions. The girls did much better there, but it took a year of unschooling in second grade to really correct all that damage. They did go back to the original charter school for third grade and enjoyed it (although we decided to homeschool after that).

So, what I guess I am saying is, trust your intuition about your child and don't worry about what anyone else says. I wish I had.

[GoBecGo]

Originally Posted by newbymom05

No one here is arguing for arbitrary age attendance. For myself, I'm arguing about readiness and ability. If your 4 y/o wants to do the kindy work, great. If your 6 y/o isn't reading and magically learned to sit still recently, great. But IF YOU'VE ALREADY GOT THE SKILL SET, GO TO THE NEXT LEVEL.

I assume you've had some college. Would you benefit from taking freshman English again? I'm sure you'd make the highest grades, be more responsible than most of your classmates, and be very successful. You'd refresh yourself on some things you forgot. But overall, it'd be a total waste of your time, not to mention the instructor's. So why would your child need to repeat what they've already learned, if not to give them an advantage over other students?

If you were in a freshman English class, chances are you'd be bored. Would it be the instructor's responsibility to challenge you and meet your advanced needs, or would it be your problem to solve, since you voluntarily chose a lower level than you were capable of?

I'm totally not buying the "time immemorial" argument, since academics beyond simple recognition in the lower grades is a recent development. Putting kids who should be at 1st grade level back to compete w/ younger kids only increases the pressure to up the academic ante--a 6 y/o is just more cognitively and developmentally capable than a child a year or more younger. That's the reason for what you call "arbitrary age obsessiveness"--the recognition that a year of development at young ages makes a big difference.

I've got an MA in history, i would definitely benefit from (and probably struggle at) freshman mathematics/physics/medicine. My DD1 is 4. She has a massive (on a par with many adults) vocabulary, she can sight read many words, and also knows her alphabet backwards and forwards. She cannot, however, write. Nor can she multiply or divide, though with adding and subtraction she is surprisingly capable. If i put her into primary 2 next year, instead of 1, given she can already do a lot of the P1 stuff, she would really struggle, because she doesn't know EVERYTHING they would have taught/begun in P1, and she would be trying to fit in with kids who have been "doing" school for a year already and don't have to worry about how to obey the teacher/find the toilet/cope without me for 6 hours/day.

When you read a book do you skip the first chapters, given you can already read? School teaches different things for different stages, it's ok to begin at the beginning even if some of the things you might learn you already know, there will be a lot you DON'T know, and a lot of experience you can only get by doing it. There's no way to "download" the experience of K without going through it. For some kids not doing K will be fine, but for others they will really benefit from a year of K, even if they don't learn a lot of ACADEMIC things they didn't already know.

And really, who is your kid going to school for? Them self? Or little Johnny down the street who had to go at 4.5 and isn't tall/big/intellectual?

[newbymom05]

Originally Posted by GoBecGo

I've got an MA in history, i would definitely benefit from (and probably struggle at) freshman mathematics/physics/medicine. My DD1 is 4. She has a massive (on a par with many adults) vocabulary, she can sight read many words, and also knows her alphabet backwards and forwards. She cannot, however, write. Nor can she multiply or divide, though with adding and subtraction she is surprisingly capable. If i put her into primary 2 next year, instead of 1, given she can already do a lot of the P1 stuff, she would really struggle, because she doesn't know EVERYTHING they would have taught/begun in P1, and she would be trying to fit in with kids who have been "doing" school for a year already and don't have to worry about how to obey the teacher/find the toilet/cope without me for 6 hours/day.

When you read a book do you skip the first chapters, given you can already read? School teaches different things for different stages, it's ok to begin at the beginning even if some of the things you might learn you already know, there will be a lot you DON'T know, and a lot of experience you can only get by doing it. There's no way to "download" the experience of K without going through it. For some kids not doing K will be fine, but for others they will really benefit from a year of K, even if they don't learn a lot of ACADEMIC things they didn't already know.

And really, who is your kid going to school for? Them self? Or little Johnny down the street who had to go at 4.5 and isn't tall/big/intellectual?

I'm sorry I'm not being more clear. I'm talking about having kids REPEAT A GRADE. In other words, Johnny down the street was in a private MDO with a full day kindergarten program at age 5, and now he is 6 and is in a PS kindergarten classroom. This is very common where I live. I'm not talking about kids who are cognitively and/or developmentally advanced and able to do work ahead of grade level, I'm talking "redshirting" in the pejorative sense that a parent has intentionally held back their child to give him/her a perceived advantage, purposely created by having them repeat a year.

[honeybee]

The cut-off in our state is December 1st, which really makes no sense. Ds1 is a November baby. He did not do an official year of K until he was 5-turning-6, when he "qualified" the year before.

I do not believe the current rigorous academic standards for K are developmentally appropriate for a lot of students, and boys especially tend to need an extra year before they are ready to read. Plus, there is just the physical ability to SIT STILL and focus and being emotionally ready, even if they are academically gifted.

I also thought about future social aspects. Would he rather be one of the first kids in his grade to learn how to drive, or the last? Did I want to be sending him off to college at age 17, when I would have to sign everything for him, or give him an extra year at home, where he would have some independence, but still have a bit of guidance?

Ds1 did awesome, and I have no regrets. He was actually in a mixed-age class of preK and K kids for three years, and the year he was "supposed" to be in K, he was not hitting K milestones. We didn't stress about it because it was not his real K year. The next year, he was completely ready, and he was easily reading by the end of the school year. We do have the advantage that in a Montessori environment, his individual academic needs can be met at whatever level he wants/needs. His reading has skyrocketed over the summer, and I'm guessing he's at a much higher than 1st-grade reading level. He's in a class with 1-3rd graders, so it's not a problem. But socially, he really fits in with the first graders.

My ds3 has a late August birthday, and I don't know yet what we'll do with him. It will probably depend on him individually whether he'll do K at age 5 or at age 6. I think a lot depends on the individual child and the school environment he or she will be in.

[ChristaN]

Originally Posted by newbymom05

I'm sorry I'm not being more clear. I'm talking about having kids REPEAT A GRADE. In other words, Johnny down the street was in a private MDO with a full day kindergarten program at age 5, and now he is 6 and is in a PS kindergarten classroom. This is very common where I live. I'm not talking about kids who are cognitively and/or developmentally advanced and able to do work ahead of grade level, I'm talking "redshirting" in the pejorative sense that a parent has intentionally held back their child to give him/her a perceived advantage, purposely created by having them repeat a year.

This happens where I live as well. Dd9 had a child in her K class who was more than a year older than her and who had already done one year of kindergarten at another school and then did a second at our neighborhood school. This child appeared very advanced as a result. I have no idea if the child was advanced anyway, but the effect of two years of K created a situation where the school had to make special accommodations for a child who already knew a lot more than expected for the grade.

If that just happens to be the case b/c a child is academically advanced, then so be it. However, situations like this where parents essentially repeat a grade with a child who doesn't need it in order to have the child be among the oldest and most advanced in the class make no sense to me. Then again, I'm one of the odd-balls around here whose children started K before they turned 5 and who agreed to skipping one of these kids a grade later on even though she was already younger.

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by newbymom05

But IF YOU'VE ALREADY GOT THE SKILL SET, GO TO THE NEXT LEVEL.

As I said, it was important to me that my daughter have a year of kindergarten and that this be the way she began her public school career. She had never been in daycare or preschool. I didn't want her to go straight from 6 years of being at home with me right into first grade. I wanted her to have kindergarten to get used to school, get used to being there instead of with me for a good part of the day, meet her classmates, color, have play-time, low-pressure, fun, learn to enjoy school.

Would you benefit from taking freshman English again?

Thank you for your excellent example. I actually did just repeat freshman English. The credit didn't transfer. Yup, benefitted me.

I'm sure you'd make the highest grades, be more responsible than most of your classmates, and be very successful. You'd refresh yourself on some things you forgot.

Yup, yup, yup. Yup.

But overall, it'd be a total waste of your time, not to mention the instructor's.

Nope, wasn't a waste of time at all. I think I can speak for my professor, too. She loved having me in the class. She asked me to photocopy most of the papers I wrote for her so she could distribute them to future students as examples of the kind of thing she's looking for.

If you were in a freshman English class, chances are you'd be bored.

Nope, wasn't bored.

Would it be the instructor's responsibility to challenge you and meet your advanced needs, or would it be your problem to solve, since you voluntarily chose a lower level than you were capable of?

Not the professor's responsibility. Her job is to teach freshman English. My problem to solve. This is what I was explaining before. A kindergarten teacher's job is to teach the basics, with the assumption that her students haven't learned a thing. If she can challenge the kids who already know the basics too, good for her.

I'm totally not buying the "time immemorial" argument, since academics beyond simple recognition in the lower grades is a recent development.

What I said was that, as long as there have been schools and teachers, there have been students who were taught by their parents beyond grade level before they started school. Teachers have always had to deal with the fact that some students start school knowing all kinds of stuff, and other students start school without having been taught any academics.

Putting kids who should be at 1st grade level back to compete w/ younger kids only increases the pressure to up the academic ante--a 6 y/o is just more cognitively and developmentally capable than a child a year or more younger.

It shouldn't be about competition. These are 5 and 6 year olds for goodness sakes. It should be about learning. It should be about learning right through college. It should never be about competition. I detest the American attitude that everything has to be a contest. There was a girl in my class in high school who was constantly trying to compete with me, and it was completely one-sided. I couldn't have cared less which one of us got better grades. When she did well I was happy for her. I was there to learn.

Originally Posted by GoBecGo

When you read a book do you skip the first chapters, given you can already read? School teaches different things for different stages, it's ok to begin at the beginning even if some of the things you might learn you already know, there will be a lot you DON'T know, and a lot of experience you can only get by doing it. There's no way to "download" the experience of K without going through it. For some kids not doing K will be fine, but for others they will really benefit from a year of K, even if they don't learn a lot of ACADEMIC things they didn't already know.

Thank you!

Originally Posted by newbymom05

I'm talking about having kids REPEAT A GRADE. In other words, Johnny down the street was in a private MDO with a full day kindergarten program at age 5, and now he is 6 and is in a PS kindergarten classroom. This is very common where I live. I'm not talking about kids who are cognitively and/or developmentally advanced and able to do work ahead of grade level, I'm talking "redshirting" in the pejorative sense that a parent has intentionally held back their child to give him/her a perceived advantage, purposely created by having them repeat a year.

Apparently there has been some confusion. My daughter did not repeat a grade. She didn't go to a private kindy before starting public school kindy. The reason I started my dd at age six was not to give her an advantage over other children. I'm not sure how you and I ended up arguing with each other.

[Devaskyla]

Originally Posted by Linda on the move

Girls mature earlier than boys, and deciding to hold a girl back *could* make the difficult adolesent years even more difficult.

Haven't read this whole thread, but you just made me EXTREMElY grateful I was a 4 year old kindergartener. I had breast development in grade 3 & my period in grade 6. I was teased a lot & felt incredibly self-conscious because I was more developed than every other girl in my grade. I can't even imagine how much worse it would have been if I'd been in with a younger group of kids.

[newbymom05]

Originally Posted by Sustainer

As I said, it was important to me that my daughter have a year of kindergarten and that this be the way she began her public school career. She had never been in daycare or preschool. I didn't want her to go straight from 6 years of being at home with me right into first grade. I wanted her to have kindergarten to get used to school, get used to being there instead of with me for a good part of the day, meet her classmates, color, have play-time, low-pressure, fun, learn to enjoy school.


Thank you for your excellent example. I actually did just repeat freshman English. The credit didn't transfer. Yup, benefitted me.


Yup, yup, yup. Yup.


Nope, wasn't a waste of time at all. I think I can speak for my professor, too. She loved having me in the class. She asked me to photocopy most of the papers I wrote for her so she could distribute them to future students as examples of the kind of thing she's looking for.


Nope, wasn't bored.


Not the professor's responsibility. Her job is to teach freshman English. My problem to solve. This is what I was explaining before. A kindergarten teacher's job is to teach the basics, with the assumption that her students haven't learned a thing. If she can challenge the kids who already know the basics too, good for her.


What I said was that, as long as there have been schools and teachers, there have been students who were taught by their parents beyond grade level before they started school. Teachers have always had to deal with the fact that some students start school knowing all kinds of stuff, and other students start school without having been taught any academics.


It shouldn't be about competition. These are 5 and 6 year olds for goodness sakes. It should be about learning. It should be about learning right through college. It should never be about competition. I detest the American attitude that everything has to be a contest. There was a girl in my class in high school who was constantly trying to compete with me, and it was completely one-sided. I couldn't have cared less which one of us got better grades. When she did well I was happy for her. I was there to learn.


Thank you!


Apparently there has been some confusion. My daughter did not repeat a grade. She didn't go to a private kindy before starting public school kindy. The reason I started my dd at age six was not to give her an advantage over other children. I'm not sure how you and I ended up arguing with each other.

Because you keep quoting me and arguing, even though I keep saying that I'm against kids REPEATING KINDY UNLESS NECESSARY? Necessary means they are 6+ and don't have the social/academic skills EVEN THOUGH THEY'VE HAD A YEAR OF KINDERGARTEN. That isn't the case w/ your daughter, so I don't know why you keep arguing either.

[MJB]

Originally Posted by newbymom05

I'm totally not buying the "time immemorial" argument, since academics beyond simple recognition in the lower grades is a recent development. Putting kids who should be at 1st grade level back to compete w/ younger kids only increases the pressure to up the academic ante--a 6 y/o is just more cognitively and developmentally capable than a child a year or more younger. That's the reason for what you call "arbitrary age obsessiveness"--the recognition that a year of development at young ages makes a big difference.

Really? You don't think there have always been kids who were advanced when they started school? My 4.5 yr. old is by far the youngest in his K class (3 mos. after the cutoff) and has been reading chapter books for a while.
I think redshirting should be rare for the kids' sake but teachers have always had to cope with children who are at very different levels.

[honeybee]

Originally Posted by eepster

http://journal.naeyc.org/btj/200309/DelayingKEntry.pdf


I recommend reading the whole article, it is very informative.

Since you want advice from people who have personal experience with this, I say send her on time. I happen to have a very unique perspective on this. I have a September b-day. I started school in a state with a late cut off, so I was the youngest in the class. I was very happy as the youngest in the class. However, when my family moved to a new state with an earlier cut off (and a 1st grade cut off) I was made to repeat kindergarten as the oldest in class. I was quite miserable, and had issue through out school, till I was 18 and old enough to just drop out of highschool without parental permission.

From the article: "It is the school's responsibility to meet the needs of the children who are legally eligible." If schools were actually doing that, then there probably wouldn't be as big of a push to keep kids back. But, I do not see states actually following these guidelines. Instead, with No Child Left Behind, ALL kids are expected to hit very specific academic goals by the end of K, so they will be "ready" to meet the testing standards in 1st grade, so the schools don't lose funding. So there is a LOT of pressure on the teachers and kids and parents to get the kids to that point, whether they're ready or not. And classrooms have changed to "meet the test" with a lot more sit-in-the-desk academic work, cutting out recess, reducing art/pe/music, etc. If schools/states were following NAEYC guidelines and research about how young children learn best, then this really wouldn't be an issue. But, the fact is they are NOT.

Yes, I understand how parents keeping children back can make the whole problem escalate.... but at the same time, as a parent I'm not going to put MY child into an environment I don't think is appropriate for him. I have to deal with the reality of what the school environment is like when I'm assessing where/when to put my kids... not what it "should" be.

Also, as far as the scaffolding and learning arguments, I think the article is coming from a fairly biased viewpoint that a child not put into school in K is not going to continue learning and developing just because he is not in a school. Parents who hold kids back out of concern that they are not ready are not just going to be sitting the kids in front of the television all day. And there is a lot of research that shows how free play helps mental and emotional development.

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by newbymom05

Because you keep quoting me and arguing, even though I keep saying that I'm against kids REPEATING KINDY UNLESS NECESSARY?

Actually I think it's because you kept making general statements like "So the teacher has to find a way to teach someone the ABC's, someone how to read the Level 2 of Bob Books, and engage someone who's capable of starting chapter books. How is that fair to anyone?" and "overall, [repeating freshman English would] be a total waste of your time, not to mention the instructor's" with which I disagreed. Your very first post referenced children repeating kindy and I did not argue with it. I think you also referred to children repeating kindy another time and I didn't argue that point either. Also, you kept quoting me and arguing with me, so I defended my arguments. If your only issue is kids repeating kindy then it doesn't seem like we should have had anything to argue about.

[spedteacher30]

Originally Posted by honeybee

Also, as far as the scaffolding and learning arguments, I think the article is coming from a fairly biased viewpoint that a child not put into school in K is not going to continue learning and developing just because he is not in a school. Parents who hold kids back out of concern that they are not ready are not just going to be sitting the kids in front of the television all day. And there is a lot of research that shows how free play helps mental and emotional development.

the article doesn't talk at all about what happens during the (for lack of a better term) redshirt year. the article talks about the outcomes studies that have examined what happens to kids who were delayed once they are older. Having not seen any of the studies, I can't tell you if they were comparing apples to apples, or if the delayed kids were only compared to on-time start kids. Presumably, the delayed kids have a higher concentration of issues than the non-delayed kids, so unless there is some way to have examined readiness screening results prior to the decision to enroll/delay and match kids who delayed with kids who entered on time with similar readiness screenings, the outcome studies aren't robust enough for a real conclusion.

My son is old enough that delaying kindergarten entrance would never cross our minds. But, if I had a child who preschool teachers recommended we delay, our first stop would be at a developmental pediatrician to rule out developmental issues. This article only cements my opinion on that.