What should we do re: class placement

[sarahr]

DD's birthday is in late September, which means that for next year she's right on the cusp between pre-k and k. We, in consultation with this year's school and next year's school, decided that pre-k was a better fit because being the oldest is better for her personality than being the youngest, plus she's a bit socially immature.

So, we found a school that's a great fit -- believes in play in the younger grades, lots of recess, good student teacher ratio, project based learning, etc.

The problem is that the pre-k class that dd would be in next year is under-enrolled: instead of 21 kids, roughly half boys and half girls, it's 14 kids, with only 3 girls. DD is the type that plays more comfortably with girls -- she doesn't really do blocks or cars or big motor stuff, and prefers quieter play. So I'm concerned with her socially because 3 people can be a really bad dynamic.

So our choices are: 1) pre-k at this school and have dd be one of 3 girls; 2) kindergarten at this school and have her be the youngest; or 3) look at another school entirely.

What would you do?

[whatsnextmom]

Mostly boys isn't neccessarily bad. I've taught preschool classes with mostly boys. There are always several who prefer quieter play. The girls tend to get really close in these situations and often grab up a few boys who like to play the same way. I'm not a fan of retention but if you feel so strongly that you enrolled her in prek instead on k, i'd give it try. If it doesn't work, the public k has to take her even if late.

[KCMichigan]

Originally Posted by whatsnextmom 

Mostly boys isn't neccessarily bad. I've taught preschool classes with mostly boys. There are always several who prefer quieter play. The girls tend to get really close in these situations and often grab up a few boys who like to play the same way. I'm not a fan of retention but if you feel so strongly that you enrolled her in prek instead on k, i'd give it try. If it doesn't work, the public k has to take her even if late.

I agree.

My preschool class has 12.   9 boys and 3 girls...I was very worried when I saw the inbalance. BUT it is a great little group- not because of gender at all, but rather by a good mesh of personalities (which you cant not predict until class starts). I have a few 'traditional' kiddos (active boys that gravitate toward gross motor activities, girly girl that dislikes getting messy) but really out of 12-- eight of the kiddos play just about anything. They can be found in the family center stringing clothes on a 'clothes line' or dressing up for a pretend party, building castles out of blocks, enjoying the sensory center. Two of my boys are even sensitive souls that prefer to curl up with books or puppets and dislike roughhousing.

At all ages, but especially between 2 to 6 or 7  kiddos are much more likely to blur gender lines than adults think. Our little boys & girls (in preschool and prek) dress up, build, look at books, craft, paint, etc. Really all play in encouraged and we do not see a lot of gender divided play nor do we allow exclusive play (not allowing play due a gender or hair color, etc)

My two 5.5 DDs favorite in school playmates are both boys. DD1 is bookish and arty, DD2 is more active and physical. The ratio in their class is 50/50 perfectly. I actually like that they enjoy playing with all their classmates (and they each have core mixed gender group of preferred friends of about 5 kiddos) in a variety of ways. At this age, I am very aware of making sure to not stereo-type activities as much as possible. DD1 wants to be president or an astronaut (both field all or primarily male) and I encourage her to do so. DD2 wants to be a ballerenia or a palentologist. I would never discourage either field (even if she was a boy-- some of the best ballerinas are male, which we have talked about). They have play swords, bug kits, toy cars,  baby dolls, princess gowns, doctor kits, science experiments, dinosaur figurines,art supplies, dirt shovels, and My little ponies....

 I would LOVE a PreK class of 14 no matter the gender (our PreK has 20). You may also pick up more kids as the year goes on--- we had a few kids shift classes at the start of the year.

[Drummer's Wife]

 Gender ratio wouldn't even be a consideration, personally.  Small class-size would be.  I wouldn't change my decision about pre-k vs. Kindergarten just b/c there are only a couple of girls in the class. 

[HollyBearsMom]

Originally Posted by Drummer's Wife 

 Gender ratio wouldn't even be a consideration, personally.  Small class-size would be.  I wouldn't change my decision about pre-k vs. Kindergarten just b/c there are only a couple of girls in the class. 

exactly what I was going to say.

[Peony]

The school that my girls go to is heavily imbalanced between boys and girls. It was a big concern of mine going into this school a couple years but it has turned out not to be an issue at all. Even now that DD1 is 8 and in 2nd grade with still only 4 girls total in her class of 18, she still plays with the boys just as much as the girls.  DD2 is 4y, one of the late B-days as well so we doing PK again next year also, she prefers quiet play and there is just always someone that wants to do that as well regardless of gender. 

[One_Girl]

I would say K at the first choice school.  Gender really has nothing to do with that though.  I don't think kids really benefit maturity wise from being around younger kids who are themselves not very mature.  If the young kids in this class turn out to be a loud rowdy bunch your dd may not have a good time if what she values is quieter play.  She probably isn't going to do much social growing if she isn't in a situation where she feels like she has things in common with other children.  If you could start one grade level then move up or down depending on the fit I would think that going with the one you really lean towards would be a good idea, but if that isn't an option then I really think you should go with K or find a different school. 

My dd also loves to be the oldest one who knows a lot, but that was very isolating for her in preschool because her interests were not the interests of the other kids.  Knowing a lot didn't make her a leader it made her the child who was bored with preschool and didn't fit in.  This wound up really hurting her socially because there weren't any kids who consistently did things she could relate to so she had a lonely year of mostly playing on her own.  Her manners lowered to the level that her peers in the classroom maintained, she lived down to expectations meant for much younger children, and she was really just overall unhappy.  That really did nothing to help her social skills and if there had been a way to get her into K that year I would have jumped at the chance.  She was stuck in that situation because of the strict cut off dates, but you have a choice and I suggest you at least try K then move her back to pre-K if it isn't working after the first month.  Trying to fit in socially after a year of really not fitting in was really hard for my dd. 

Keep in mind that about half of the kids going to Kindergarten have been at home all their lives, some with enriching trips into the community and some not.  Kindergarten is really not the scary, age inappropriate, place that many parents and preschool teachers think of it as being.   Most Kindergarten teachers are wonderful about easing these kids into expectations and helping students learn how to treat their peers.  This is something that I have noticed is especially true with teachers who still value the play based approach to learning in K.  It is a hard decision either way though.  I think K is the hardest grade because there is so much that is unknown and it is a very big milestone for kids that I personally dreaded because it is such a loaded transition.  I stressed about the K placement decision for over a year and I cried when my dd actually went to K even though she had been attending preschool on the same campus and the days were shorter in K than they had been in preschool.  Good luck making your decision!  I am sure it will be a good one no matter which decision you make.

Edited by One_Girl - 5/19/11 at 9:34pm

[Linda on the move]

Gender balance isn't a consideration for us at all. The alternative school my kids go to, which I try not to talk about too much because it's so perfect I feel like I'm just bragging, has FAR more boys than girls. One of my DDs had some problems with it at first because she had it in her head that she could only be friends with girls, but she's gotten over that. Her concept of who she can be friends with has really broadened.

If you don't assume that she can only be friends with girls, then she won't either. Penises aren't so horrid as to make other humans incapable of friendship.

[DariusMom]

Originally Posted by Linda on the move 

If you don't assume that she can only be friends with girls, then she won't either. Penises aren't so horrid as to make other humans incapable of friendship.

As the mom of a boy, I love this!

Seriously, though . . . . when DS started pre-K at 4 years old (in a mixed-age group of kids between 4 and 6 years old), he played with girls and boys. Unfortunately, it soon became "not the done thing" for the children to mix with opposite gender kids. I think had the balance been less evenly divided between boys and girls, there would have been a lot more mixing, which would have been good for my very quiet, gentle, DS.

[ollyoxenfree]

I wouldn't be concerned about gender imbalance too much at that age. 

First, I think it's likely she will find at least some of the boys have a sympatico personality and will also enjoy some quiet play. Not all boys are rampaging, rough-housing little toughs - mine wasn't so much. He always found a few like-minded boys in every class. He didn't hesitate to join in with the "boy" play, but he wasn't ostracized if he played quieter games either. 

Second, it's a long way to September. The enrolment could change, especially if the school does an enrolment drive to attract new students. 

Third, she may be encouraged to participate in more active "boy" play if she joins this class, and that's not a bad thing. 

I would have more concerns about a gender imbalance in later grades, in the opposite direction. My friend's son was one of a few boys in a mostly female class in middle school. The girls pulled a lot of "mean girl" social bullying, and a lot of it was targeted at the boys. Luckily, he's a kid with a strong personality and it rolled off of him, but it was bad enough that the parents had to intervene. 

[Linda on the move]

Originally Posted by ollyoxenfree  The girls pulled a lot of "mean girl" social bullying, and a lot of it was targeted at the boys. Luckily, he's a kid with a strong personality and it rolled off of him, but it was bad enough that the parents had to intervene. 

It's really normal for adults to need to intervene in "mean girl" situations in that age group, no matter what the gender balance.

[ollyoxenfree]

Originally Posted by Linda on the move 

It's really normal for adults to need to intervene in "mean girl" situations in that age group, no matter what the gender balance.

Oh, sure, I agree. I just think that the gender imbalance in the class was a factor in the toxicity of the situation. If there had been a more equal split between boys and girls, I don't think the few mean girls would have held the same influence. It became the norm to ostracize the boys, pick on them, use put downs aimed at boys - a reverse chauvinism took hold in the class. What started out as some fairly innocent joking ("Just like a man!!" sort of stuff) became really mean-spirited and ugly. There was also some early exercising of romantic power on the part of the girls that wasn't very healthy either. 

ETA: I should add that this happened several years ago, not too long after the media played up massive concerns that schools and teachers favoured boys, to the detriment of girls (eg. boys called on more in class, boys demanded and got more attention, boys' opinions given more weight...). I think there was a big effort to promote "girl power", but it wasn't always handled very well in the classrooms - and especially not in this particular classroom. 

Edited by ollyoxenfree - 5/20/11 at 7:42am

[whatsnextmom]

You know, the "mean girl" thing happens in every situation when it comes to elementary school. In your case, the target was boys and perhaps the inequity of the class gender played it's part but I tell you, even if the class was equal, SOMEONE would have been the target. It's usually other girls. Being more balanced would have only shifted that behavior to someone else (possibly) not erraticated it from the classroom.

Originally Posted by ollyoxenfree 

Oh, sure, I agree. I just think that the gender imbalance in the class was a factor in the toxicity of the situation. If there had been a more equal split between boys and girls, I don't think the few mean girls would have held the same influence. It became the norm to ostracize the boys, pick on them, use put downs aimed at boys - a reverse chauvinism took hold in the class. What started out as some fairly innocent joking ("Just like a man!!" sort of stuff) became really mean-spirited and ugly. There was also some early exercising of romantic power on the part of the girls that wasn't very healthy either. 

ETA: I should add that this happened several years ago, not too long after the media played up massive concerns that schools and teachers favoured boys, to the detriment of girls (eg. boys called on more in class, boys demanded and got more attention, boys' opinions given more weight...). I think there was a big effort to promote "girl power", but it wasn't always handled very well in the classrooms - and especially not in this particular classroom. 

[MJB]

If you think that pre-K is a better fit, I would not worry about the gender balance. 

My now-kindergartner was in a small preschool (12 kids in his class, together for two years) that had more boys than girls. However, he prefers playing with girls. In the 2 years he was there, he *never* asked for or was invited for a playdate with any of the many boys in his class. He had regular playdates with some of the girls. He told me he didn't like the way the boys played; he's very verbal and preferred talking to roughhousing. In kindergarten (all new classmates) he has connected with a couple boys but he still prefers to play with girls. I think there's a boy like him in most preschools. And in both his preschool and kindergarten, there's a girl who loves trucks and dinosaurs. 

[ollyoxenfree]

Originally Posted by whatsnextmom 

You know, the "mean girl" thing happens in every situation when it comes to elementary school. In your case, the target was boys and perhaps the inequity of the class gender played it's part but I tell you, even if the class was equal, SOMEONE would have been the target. It's usually other girls. Being more balanced would have only shifted that behavior to someone else (possibly) not erraticated it from the classroom.

Again, I don't disagree. I am just explaining how a class with a severe gender imbalance contributed to a problem in the classroom. And in that case, I think if there had been more boys in the class, the situation would not have deteriorated as it did. Certainly, the "mean girl" group would not have been as large - they would have been split up - and arguably, their influence wouldn't have been as powerful. Perhaps there would have been other problems, that's a lot of speculation.

I don't think gender imbalance is a reason to avoid placement (as I said in my first post, actually).

It can, however, be a factor in some bad situations. If the teachers, administration and parents aren't aware or refuse to recognize it or ignore it, then it's not helpful at all.  

[JudiAU]

If the school has a lot of play it will be fine. At our reggio preschool there is grouping based on interests but the boys and girls are really intermingled. It isn't really very gendered. Yes, there are some girls who are mean princesses and boys who only do rough superhero play,  but overall lots of different play patterns. It sounds like enough kids to find a niche and a good school will make it interesting for everyone.

My DS is right in the middle. Atrracted to the rough housing but doesn't understand how it works. Happy to play pretty much anyway.

[lindberg99]

Originally Posted by Linda on the move 

If you don't assume that she can only be friends with girls, then she won't either. Penises aren't so horrid as to make other humans incapable of friendship.

Yes! My middle son was mainly friends with girls until about 2nd grade. And my youngest boy, who is much more "boyish" and rough and tumble than his brother, had quite a few girl friends last year in K. I think about half the invitees to his 6th b-day party were girls.

[mom2ponygirl]

Originally Posted by ollyoxenfree 

Again, I don't disagree. I am just explaining how a class with a severe gender imbalance contributed to a problem in the classroom. And in that case, I think if there had been more boys in the class, the situation would not have deteriorated as it did. Certainly, the "mean girl" group would not have been as large - they would have been split up - and arguably, their influence wouldn't have been as powerful. Perhaps there would have been other problems, that's a lot of speculation.

I don't think gender imbalance is a reason to avoid placement (as I said in my first post, actually).

It can, however, be a factor in some bad situations. If the teachers, administration and parents aren't aware or refuse to recognize it or ignore it, then it's not helpful at all.  

It can also be a factor with just a few girls in the class.  My friend's daughter was in a class with 4 other girls, the rest boys.  The girls all bonded by excluding her and then teased her if she tried to be friends with the boys.  

In general I don't you can predict based on gender distribution what a class will be like.  It only takes one or two mean girl types to really turn a class (and a teacher who doesn't actively work against that dynamic).  I think you just have to try a class and see what the kids (and teacher) are like.  
 

[lindberg99]

Originally Posted by MJB 

If you think that pre-K is a better fit, I would not worry about the gender balance. 

I agree with this. You have to go with what is best for her education, and you said that is pre-K.

And also, as our principal said when I asked her something about next year "It's only May!" Who knows, the gender split of the class might look very different by August. If it is a public school and you live in an area that has a lot of renters, some people may move in or out over the summer. If it is a private school, they will be actively seeking students over the summer so things could change too.

And like others said, don't assume she will just be friends with girls. My youngest son was in K last year and I'd say about half the friends he wanted to invite to his b-day party were girls. My middle son's best friend through pre-school was a girl and he still has girl friends now in 5th grade. 

[sarahr]

Thanks, everyone. It turns out there are 4 girls and 10 boys, with two more kids (one boy and one girl) possibly joining as well. That feels better to me than 3 girls, plus, of course, there might be some boys interested in the quiet stuff that my dd favors. So we're going to stick with our original plan.