Even if it isn't tackle football, it will be something else. Do you want a 6 year getting pummeled by a 9 year old playing dodgeball?
I would assume "getting pummeled" is something the school would handle... I think for most people this is a strawman situation.
I'm not sure what you mean? Do you want them to separate the older kids in class/at recess from the younger, smaller kids? I think once they permit all the redshirting stuff, that ship has sailed. And at that point, yes, a 9 year old is going to be able to throw a ball significantly harder and faster than a 6 year old. Hence, the "getting pummeled" reference. I don't know what the solution at that point is. Not let the little kids play? Not let the big kids play?
This is crazy to me. What happens when the majority of parents start "redshirting" and all the kids start late? Then no one has a leg up anymore. Is the cycle just going to repeat itself? Eventually, kids won't start K until they are 7? How ridiculous.
This point was made in the story.
The parent in the story who red-shirted listed the things her son could already do by the time he entered Kindergarten. All I could think was that in a world where teachers simply don't have the time or resources to be adequately responsive to a broad spectrum of abilities within a single classroom, that kid is probably going to be ignored and bored as hell.
I couldn't get the story to load on my work computer, thanks for letting me know though. I am going to try and watch/read it at home later.
I agree with your point - it's going to suck to be the kid that is bored and already knows everything. Even worse, though, is going to be the eventual day when that is the norm, and the teacher is now teaching the class to that level and the poor kid whose parents started him "on time" that is struggling to catch up to the older ones.
Even if it isn't tackle football, it will be something else. Do you want a 6 year getting pummeled by a 9 year old playing dodgeball?
I would assume "getting pummeled" is something the school would handle... I think for most people this is a strawman situation.
it's also about changing expectations. kids weren't required to be able to read BEFORE kindergarten, when the norm was entering when you were possibly 4. this had been a 1st grade requirement. now all kids are expected (although it's not listed in the requirements) to know how to read and to write, because the kids in the class ARE able to read and write. because they're 6.
if you're going to set the expectations at the level of the oldest kid in the class who, according to the statue, really shouldn't be in there in the first place because they should be in the next grade level, how is that a reasonable expectation for the other students who are in the correct grade?
it's no longer an issue of the older kids being the smartest, it's an issue of the kids who are too old for the grade skewing the curve for the kids who are on the younger side but are still in the right age group.
if people want kids to be 6 and in kindergarten they should change it so all kindergarteners are 6 and be done with it. cut off at 1st day of school.
I'm somewhere between ttt/sbp and dobalina on this one.
I'm glad this is one of the few things about raising my kid about which I'm not neurotic. I don't care if she is 17 or 18 when she graduates HS. I was a summer baby and sometimes it sucked (not being 18 until just before going to college) but I managed and graduated at 21, which sort of made me appear smarter than I am.
On the other hand, my nephew was red shirted and I don't think it helped him at all. It was for maturity reasons. The year didn't change much or help him in that regard.
And I don't like my daughter being in 8th grade at age 13 with a 15 year old in her class, but red shirted or not I lived through that and also survived.
My step-niece has a June Bday and her Bio Mom opted not to red shirt her, she ended up doing badly in K b/c she wasn't ready and had to repeat it. She now hates school because she's embarrassed to see her friends from her first K year (she's in 3rd and literally has told her Dad this) I'd 100% err on the side of red shirting to this. Better to start late, then repeat and have the label of "failing".
No, what her bio-mom did was start her when she was supposed to start. When you phrase it like she 'opted' not to red shirt her then you imply that this is something that all families decide to do for kids born THREE months before the cut-off. It is ridiculous to red-shirt a child born 3 months before the cut-off unless there are learning issues already present.
wait, why do we care when other people put their kids in school? I have to say this doesn't worry me at all...
One reason to care is that if you have a girl who is young for her grade, she's going to be in high school with 19 year old guys when she is 13. Another reason to care is that teachers in the younger grades seem to be getting less and less tolerant of age-appropriate behavior. Completely anecdotal, but I've even heard teachers on here say that it gets to be pretty hard to put a lesson plan together for a kindergarten classroom where the youngest kid is 4 and the oldest kid might be 7. And then these same teachers start to look at the 7 year old as the "normal" for kindergarten rather than the 5 year old.
Do you really want your 5 year old being put in the "slow" reading group because their particularly classroom is heavy on 6-7 year olds who are placed in the "accelerated" reading group.
And there are emotional reasons to care about this too. Those parents who are red-shirting for sports reasons, their 16 year old freshman is going to stand a lot better chance of making the baseball team than your 14 year old freshman. Is that fair to your son, who might be very good at and enjoy team athletics but is being denied a place on the team because the expectation has shifted such that the team plays like a group of 15-19 year olds rather than 14-18 year old?
Those are the reasons I care about it. I don't want my daughter (October birthday) surrounded by guys who should be in college when she's just out of middle school, and I don't want my son (June birthday) being treated like he's "slow" when he's actually completely age-appropriate.
All of this, but also, you can't expect a 4 year old to sit still and concentrate for nearly the same amount of time as a 7 year old. I could certainly see a lot of younger kids being labeled "inattentive" or "disruptive" when they're simply acting their age. The age that all the kids in the class *should* be.
And most schools have a freshman team for freshmen. And if precious doesn't make the team because someone is better at the game, that is an ok life lesson to learn, isn't it?
Right, but if your freshman is 14 and the other freshmen are 16 or 17, that isn't really fair to your kid who's being penalized simply for his age. It's the rare 14 year old who can physically outplay a 16 or 17 year old.
Yeah it's a life lesson, but as life lessons go, "Sorry, you didn't make the team because Johnny's parents decided he needed to be the oldest, biggest kid in the class so he gets a spot instead of you" is a pretty crappy one.
And most schools have a freshman team for freshmen. And if precious doesn't make the team because someone is better at the game, that is an ok life lesson to learn, isn't it?
I have no problem with the life lessons about about winners and losers. However, I don't think it is much of a winner if the only way you can achieve it is by playing people who are younger and less experienced.
One reason to care is that if you have a girl who is young for her age, she's going to be in high school with 19 year old guys when she is 13. Another reason to care is that teachers in the younger grades seem to be getting less and less tolerant of age-appropriate behavior. Completely anecdotal, but I've even heard teachers on here say that it gets to be pretty hard to put a lesson plan together for a kindergarten classroom where the youngest kid is 4 and the oldest kid might be 7. And then these same teachers start to look at the 7 year old as the "normal" for kindergarten rather than the 5 year old.
Do you really want your 5 year old being put in the "slow" reading group because their particularly classroom is heavy on 6-7 year olds who are placed in the "accelerated" reading group.
And there are emotional reasons to care about this too. Those parents who are red-shirting for sports reasons, their 16 year old freshman is going to stand a lot better chance of making the baseball team than your 14 year old freshman. Is that fair to your son, who might be very good at and enjoy team athletics but is being denied a place on the team because the expectation has shifted such that the team plays like a group of 15-19 year olds rather than 14-18 year old?
Those are the reasons I care about it. I don't want my daughter (October birthday) surrounded by guys who should be in college when she's just out of middle school, and I don't want my son (June birthday) being treated like he's "slow" when he's actually completely age-appropriate.
I think the problem is less significant that you think. I doubt a 13 year old will be "surrounded" by college age men, and if she is outside of school, then you as a parent need to take care of that.
There are special needs students who are in school until age 21. Are you worried about them? I mean, really, there already are these people of these ages in schools. It's not new, I don't understand why it's such a horror show. And most schools have a freshman team for freshmen. And if precious doesn't make the team because someone is better at the game, that is an ok life lesson to learn, isn't it?
But in this situation, precious will never be on the team. Calling it a freshman team is fine, but if precious is a 13 or 14 year old freshman, there are going to be 16 year old freshmen too who will be "better" simply because they are older, stronger and more developed physically. Not because they actually have more natural athletic ability. And these kids will go through the years together, year after year, and the younger kid will never get to play. That seems like a great life lesson to you?
When did we stop giving teacher's the credit they deserve for knowing what is developmentally appropriate for a 4 year old vs. a 6 or 7 year old? And I HIGHLY doubt a four year old would be in a class with many 7 year olds...
For me the problem is with larger class sizes and the limited time for a teacher to come up with a varied curriculum within the same classroom to address what is developmentally appropriate for each age.
Right, but if your freshman is 14 and the other freshmen are 16 or 17, that isn't really fair to your kid who's being penalized simply for his age. It's the rare 14 year old who can physically outplay a 16 or 17 year old.
Yeah it's a life lesson, but as life lessons go, "Sorry, you didn't make the team because Johnny's parents decided he needed to be the oldest, biggest kid in the class so he gets a spot instead of you" is a pretty crappy one.
So 9 spots on a team for redshirted freshman? I really think this is a mountain out of a molehill and some entitlement issues.
Freshman on a freshman team...great. Big 17 year old freshman? In this unlikely happenstance, I bet they'd be pulled up.
Why would they get pulled up? They aren't as "good" as the 19 year olds on varsity...
Right, but if your freshman is 14 and the other freshmen are 16 or 17, that isn't really fair to your kid who's being penalized simply for his age. It's the rare 14 year old who can physically outplay a 16 or 17 year old.
Yeah it's a life lesson, but as life lessons go, "Sorry, you didn't make the team because Johnny's parents decided he needed to be the oldest, biggest kid in the class so he gets a spot instead of you" is a pretty crappy one.
So 9 spots on a team for redshirted freshman? I really think this is a mountain out of a molehill and some entitlement issues.
Freshman on a freshman team...great. Big 17 year old freshman? In this unlikely happenstance, I bet they'd be pulled up.
Not if the kids on the older teams are 18-20.
I don't know what the percentages of kids who are redshirted in kindergarten are, but it seems that they are growing. If it becomes a common thing (if it's not already) then this is the direction that we're heading, where kids who are the "right" age are the minority. That's why it's not just "what other people are doing with their kids." It doesn't just affect their kids, it affects a lot of other people too.
When did we stop giving teacher's the credit they deserve for knowing what is developmentally appropriate for a 4 year old vs. a 6 or 7 year old? And I HIGHLY doubt a four year old would be in a class with many 7 year olds...
As I said before, DS is compared on tests with the other kids in his class, no matter the age. (Although it's an 18-month difference, not a 3-year one.) So, yes, it happens.
When did we stop giving teacher's the credit they deserve for knowing what is developmentally appropriate for a 4 year old vs. a 6 or 7 year old? And I HIGHLY doubt a four year old would be in a class with many 7 year olds...
It isn't about the teacher not knowing what's appropriate. It's about the teacher not having the time or resources to dedicate to multiple age levels in one classroom.
I worry most about a curriculum slowly changing to suit a better developed brain and thus leaving children who are on target out in the cold. I worry that this will eventually lead to pushing back the age for school and I worry how that will impact families who will find themselves with a longer day care/preschool bill than they expected.
I'm gonna go ahead and be flammable here. If my kid isn't ready for K, they'll have to repeat the grade and we'll move on.
Unless there is a developmental delay you can point to, I think it's silly to redshirt, even for so called social immaturity. You really think they are maturing at home with mommy or at daycare with younger children?
Well, ds is delayed socially, among other things, is is currently in a special needs preschool whee he gets 1 day less a week than kindy, but otherwise the same hours. I think in most cases she there is a true delay (social or otherwise) the kid is getting services to help with that, not sitting at home watching sesame street.
But in this situation, precious will never be on the team. Calling it a freshman team is fine, but if precious is a 13 or 14 year old freshman, there are going to be 16 year old freshmen too who will be "better" simply because they are older, stronger and more developed physically. Not because they actually have more natural athletic ability. And these kids will go through the years together, year after year, and the younger kid will never get to play. That seems like a great life lesson to you?
but I think this won't happen. One or two kids who are bigger and better will make JV or Varsity. This has ALWAYS been the way it works.
And not every kid makes the team in high school. It sucks. But unless we go and give every kid a trophy, life happens. And I think a lot of Freshmen teams are no cut. So they get one year and then they can play in a youth league.
I understand your opinion is that it won't happen. I respectfully disagree and think that is the way things are headed if something isn't done to nip it in the bud.
And yes, I understand very well that not all kids make the team and that life is not fair. However, the sports concept is just an analogy for the rest of the school curriculum that is also trending to leave kids that start "on-time" behind to cater to those kids who start late.
My point is, it HAS been happening, continues to happen, and may be increasing slowly. But I think a LOT of chicken littles are running around postulating how it's impacting THEIR PRECIOUS child w/o any data.
I actually don't have a horse in this race. I just think the concept of holding your kid back for no reason other than you don't want them to be the youngest (or because you want them to be better than everyone else in the class) is ridiculous.
I also think it's a bad idea to let parents be the deciders on their child's readiness to attend school. If you've met with counselors and educators who have recommended a delay, that's all well and good. But I'm not sure I trust most parents to know if their kids are ready.
I saw this quite often when I was working daycare. Parents would tell me all the time, oh no, s/he not able to do x, y, z and yet they did so just fine in the classroom. I think it's best if you have doubts to get your child assessed by professionals.
I think the problem is less significant that you think. I doubt a 13 year old will be "surrounded" by college age men, and if she is outside of school, then you as a parent need to take care of that.
There are special needs students who are in school until age 21. Are you worried about them? I mean, really, there already are these people of these ages in schools. It's not new, I don't understand why it's such a horror show. And most schools have a freshman team for freshmen. And if precious doesn't make the team because someone is better at the game, that is an ok life lesson to learn, isn't it?
I am not worried about special education 21 year olds. I am worried about age and developmentally-appropriate 19 year olds in an environment tailored NOT to 19 year olds.
I also think you underestimate the number of parents doing this. When I was a kid, it was pretty rare and usually done at the suggestion of a pediatrician or a psychologist involved in the child's care. Now, it's an absolute phenomenon of the middle and upper classes. "Everyone" is doing it. I predict that by the time we are looking at kindergarten for my son, 1/3-1/5 of his pre-K class will be staying back a year even though they qualify for K per the deadline.
I can see trying to argue the "every parent has to do what's right for them" line. But trying to argue that the phenomenon isn't actually happening or that having the age demographic of your kid's classrooms change wouldn't result in having the dynamics or curriculum of the classroom change is seriously obtuse. I mean, to the point where I wonder if it's intentional because it's such a slow day.
Ditto. It happens A Lot here. I met a mom who is already planning to hold her 2 year old, who has a February birthday back, because he is a boy, and they need extra time, and there is no rush. What the F! He is 2- how can you have any clue whether he will be ready for K at 5.5 or 6.5?
This town has a high acheiving school system, and is wealthy. People can happily afford the extra year of preschool, and since kindy is demanding, they don't want to send precious early. Personally I would rather see them chill out the kindy expectations. It's a vicious cycle.
When did we stop giving teacher's the credit they deserve for knowing what is developmentally appropriate for a 4 year old vs. a 6 or 7 year old? And I HIGHLY doubt a four year old would be in a class with many 7 year olds...
I think you are underestimating the extent of the problem in some districts. My public school supposedly close to 1/3 of any given grade is old enough to be 1 grade up.
The schools need to start enforcing the truancy laws which says you must be enrolled in school by your 6th birthday.
My son's teacher commented this year that he has done very well as a Feb. baby, her take on red-shirting is it isn't just unfair to the youngest kids in the class it is also unfair to the kids who should be doing 2nd grade work by age but are stuck doing 1st grade work
Re: wait, why do we care when other people put their kids in school? I have to say this doesn't worry me at all...
Usually how other people choose to raise their children doesn't affect or concern me at all - but this is different. It does affect our family. I almost had to switch pre-schools because so many children were being held back that they weren't going to have a place for our child. I also work in the school and am on the board and think it is a terrible decision to have these children repeat, for a third year, dinosaurs and cupcakes etc. when I know they are ready for more learning. I don't like to see that and feel badly for the children - the program they are being put into was not developed for 5 year olds!
Also - based on my observations at pre-school both of my daughters who will be 4 when they start school will be placed in classes with 6 year olds. Some of them will turn 7 by the end of the school year. I think it is unfair and I also really don't like the underlying attitudes that have lead to this trend... which is the real problem - not that my "chicken littles" as you put it have to be sheltered from older kids.
I also think it's a bad idea to let parents be the deciders on their child's readiness to attend school. If you've met with counselors and educators who have recommended a delay, that's all well and good. But I'm not sure I trust most parents to know if their kids are ready.
I saw this quite often when I was working daycare. Parents would tell me all the time, oh no, s/he not able to do x, y, z and yet they did so just fine in the classroom. I think it's best if you have doubts to get your child assessed by professionals.
My unpopular opinion for the day... amen, and...consider, if you think there's a major delay, a professional not employed by the school system.
Educators are good people (I say with much bias), but schools have vested interests and limited resources as well. Having the professional you see be someone who isn't worried about how to afford paying for another 'special needs' diagnosis/accommodation or who isn't concerned with grand monies associated w/ the special needs diagnosis is important.
Letting professionals decides makes sense, but I sat in my son's IEP meeting last spring and it seemed the K teacher preferred to have all 6 year olds because it is "easier" for her vs what was right for my son. I basically discounted her opinion when she said almost everyone could benefit from an extra year. I went with what DS's developmental pediatrician said.
I also think it's a bad idea to let parents be the deciders on their child's readiness to attend school. If you've met with counselors and educators who have recommended a delay, that's all well and good. But I'm not sure I trust most parents to know if their kids are ready.
I saw this quite often when I was working daycare. Parents would tell me all the time, oh no, s/he not able to do x, y, z and yet they did so just fine in the classroom. I think it's best if you have doubts to get your child assessed by professionals.
I think this is a big issue. I still don't know what is considered "mature" for kindergarten. It is one thing if your child has a diagnosed delay but for everything else, what specifically is considered not socially ready?
I have a friend who is holding back her youngest kid just so she can get a break in college tuition down the road (as in she only wants 2 kids in college at a time.
I have a friend who is holding back her youngest kid just so she can get a break in college tuition down the road (as in she only wants 2 kids in college at a time.
*eyebrow raise* MORE kids in college @ the same time tends to greatly increase the amount of aid.
I have a friend who is holding back her youngest kid just so she can get a break in college tuition down the road (as in she only wants 2 kids in college at a time.
*eyebrow raise* MORE kids in college @ the same time tends to greatly increase the amount of aid.
that's what I told her. I made out well with financial aid because I was the oldest of 5 and my youngest sister is only 8 years younger than I am.
I basically discounted her opinion when she said almost everyone could benefit from an extra year.
I'm not sure I would have been able to stop myself from pointing out that almost everyone would *really* benefit from an extra two years. Hell, make it three, and you'll have a classroom full of Kindergarten geniuses.