OT: DS turns 5 end of July so Kindergarten or no Kindergarten

[odc146]

To the Op, I forgot to put in my post that in regards to my 2 boys. The older one that didn't start until he was almost 6, he has always done well in school. He is in advance math, and was selected to take his foreign language a year earlier with a select group of kids. He seems socially right with the rest of the kids in his class, and he has never had an issue with being older. Most of his other friend's birthdays start happening in about Jan, so actually he is really only a few months older than most. Just wanted to add that. Again, good luck.

 

[dogluva]

I find it unbelieveable that keeping my child home an extra year is such a big deal. I truely believe kids are pushed way to much anymore, and I am very happy with giving all my kids an extra year to play and be a kid.
My daughters teacher was thrilled we held her, and has many times said she very much prefers kids to be at least 5 when they start school. They work at a very very fast pace, and are expected to acomplish and awful lot. This is not because of the age of the class, but because that is what the class calls for. We even talked to the principal, who absolutely suggested holding our daughter a year, kindergarten is not what is once was.
We have a wonderful school district, who expects a lot of the kids, and we 100% did the right thing.
And just for the record, we have never asked the teacher to do anything different with my daughter, thankfully she is a great teacher, who works with all levels. There are reading clubs, my daughter is in a club that does small books, there are also clubs that do sounds, and letters. She has a math club, she is working on numbers, while others are doing simple math facts. A GOOD teacher can challenge all children, not just the older ones.

Then why don't they change the cut off dates to Aug. 31 or whenever your school starts?? If that is what the teachers prefer why don't they change it?That way they are all "Five". Oh, because those that are born a month before will still be the youngest. Then the June, May and April babies will be too young. It is never going to end.So they will want them to be five and a half next.

I think we should wait until the kids tell us they are ready.

 

[hmacmahony]

I truely don't care if you decide to send your child to kindergarten at 4, that is where you are wrong, I don't think it is the right thing, but you are the mother, not me.
But, how dare my child be taught any different than your child because of her birthday. I would never go into my childs teacher, and throw a fit that they were not teaching to my child, teachers have to teach to a class, not a child, and that means that some will be ahead, some behind, some right in the middle, but to expect a teacher to only teach to your child because of their birthday is insane.
I have said it before, I have NEVER expected the teacher to teach up to my child, my child is right where she should be (slightly ahead in reading, but kids learn things a different rates anyway). But, I also don't expect the teacher to slow down to teach to your 4 year old, espically in our district where they very much push you to keep your child until they are older.
I won't agree with you, you won't agree with me, we both believe we are doing the absolute best thing for our child, and that is all that matters in the end. If only ever parents was as involved as we are in our childs education, then the school system would be very different anyway.

Well obviously from your post YOU DON'T CARE about my child. It seems to me you are the one whose kids will grow up with feeling that only their needs are most important. Didn't you just say that exact thing???? I am confused.

 

[hmacmahony]

OUr state is oct 1, and yes, the state is in the process of changing the cutoff date, to Aug 15 (but as you know that takes a while to take place). When that happens, guess what, my kids, none of them, would of made the cutoff in the first place.
So, clearly my state agrees with me that sending a 4 year old to kindergarten is not right....

Then why don't they change the cut off dates to Aug. 31 or whenever your school starts?? If that is what the teachers prefer why don't they change it?That way they are all "Five". Oh, because those that are born a month before will still be the youngest. Then the June, May and April babies will be too young. It is never going to end.So they will want them to be five and a half next.

I think we should wait until the kids tell us they are ready.

 

[dogluva]

I truely don't care if you decide to send your child to kindergarten at 4, that is where you are wrong, I don't think it is the right thing, but you are the mother, not me.
But, how dare my child be taught any different than your child because of her birthday. I would never go into my childs teacher, and throw a fit that they were not teaching to my child, teachers have to teach to a class, not a child, and that means that some will be ahead, some behind, some right in the middle, but to expect a teacher to only teach to your child because of their birthday is insane.
I have said it before, I have NEVER expected the teacher to teach up to my child, my child is right where she should be (slightly ahead in reading, but kids learn things a different rates anyway). But, I also don't expect the teacher to slow down to teach to your 4 year old, espically in our district where they very much push you to keep your child until they are older.
I won't agree with you, you won't agree with me, we both believe we are doing the absolute best thing for our child, and that is all that matters in the end. If only ever parents was as involved as we are in our childs education, then the school system would be very different anyway.

Well it is obvious you don't care about a lot of things.

I did send my boy to school at four. He did great. He is a civil engineering major. he is 19 and in his second year of college. He has never complained about being the youngest nor did he miss an extra year to stay home and play and mature. That is my take on it and I am glad I sent him. I don't know what would have happended if I sent him. I just know that he did fine and so what he was the youngest. Someone has to be. Eventually it doesn't seem to matter.

If the teachers push the parents to hold the chidlren back then why don't they change the cut off date? Your telling the parents that their kids are old enough but then saying but really there not. How confusing. Take away the confusion. They need to change the date. It makes no sense for all the educators to be advocating holding a kid back but alllowing them to go to school when they think they are not ready.

 

[hmacmahony]

That is wonderful that your child did well ten years ago, but we are talking about sending a child to kindergarten next year. Many things have changed in ten years.
Our school cannot leagally tell anyone what to do, they can only make suggestions, but as I said before the cutoff is changing in our state, it just takes time.
Until that time, all our school can do is suggest, not make a child stay out of kindergarten at 4.
We talked to a lot of parents in the same situtation with older kids, and honestly many said they wished they waited a year, not all but more than half.

Well it is obvious you don't care about a lot of things.

I did send my boy to school at four. He did great. He is a civil engineering major. he is 19 and in his second year of college. He has never complained about being the youngest nor did he miss an extra year to stay home and play and mature. That is my take on it and I am glad I sent him. I don't know what would have happended if I sent him. I just know that he did fine and so what he was the youngest. Someone has to be. Eventually it doesn't seem to matter.

If the teachers push the parents to hold the chidlren back then why don't they change the cut off date? Your telling the parents that their kids are old enough but then saying but really there not. How confusing. Take away the confusion. They need to change the date. It makes no sense for all the educators to be advocating holding a kid back but alllowing them to go to school when they think they are not ready.

 

[brymolmom]

States actually CAN tell you what to do - many have a law requiring a child to be in school (home or other) by age 6.....all I want is for them to 'firm up' the legality of the younger kids so that parents don't have a say at age 5 either.

Go ahead and change the date to Aug 1st, June 1st or even March 1st....but then the situation will still persist when kids with January b-days are held back due to not being 'ready'. But if the cutoff is changed and then the law adjusted to reflect that - THEN we will have an equal playing field.

And my main point is that I DON'T want a redshirted child taught differently than my on-time child - I want them ALL TAUGHT to the curriculum dictated by the area cutoff- in my case - to 4 and young 5 year olds. I want that teacher to have a group of kids closer in age and knowledge (without having 18 - 20 months additional learning) - so that his/her job is easier without having to 'challenge' kids who really should be in 1st grade. My child will unfortunately be given less of that teacher's time if she has half a class of should-be-first-graders - and that IMO is the school and state's fault for allowing parental choice. And, yes - my teacher will be hearing about it from me, DAILY if necessary. People who want their child challenged would be sending them on time IMO. And you should not be able to have it both ways (the most mature, knowledgeable, emotionally older, taller, most coordinated, etc) child AND also be taught at his/her "first grade" academic level.

 

[BCDisneyFanatic]

I can't believe that kindergarten students are having so many expectations put onto them. In my DDs' school here in British Columbia, the K curriculum was VERY socially based...there was mat time where they did some basic counting and addition, and they learned the letters of the alphabet, but it wasn't until the second half of the year that they started a reading program at home. Students were NOT expected to read before Grade 1 (and neither of my kids did).

For those of you with a background in educational theory, I very much agree with Piaget - when children are mentally mature enough to learn something, it will come easily. Yes, we could teach the average four year old to read, but it is much easier (and faster) to teach a six year old.

Instead of fighting to hold kids back because they are not "ready" for kindergarten, maybe we should be making kindergarten a more appropriate place for kids at that age with average abilities and social skills. It seems like the pressure put on students from the "No Child Left Behind" policy is just resulting in kids experiencing failure and frustration at an earlier age!

Heather

PS - In case you're wondering, by Christmas in Grade 1, DD9 was reading beginning chapter books. She just finished the 7th Harry Potter series. Her 'delayed start' in reading certainly hasn't hurt her (she's also a November birthday and started K at age 4).

 

[Mouse House Mama]

States actually CAN tell you what to do - many have a law requiring a child to be in school (home or other) by age 6.....all I want is for them to 'firm up' the legality of the younger kids so that parents don't have a say at age 5 either.

Go ahead and change the date to Aug 1st, June 1st or even March 1st....but then the situation will still persist when kids with January b-days are held back due to not being 'ready'. But if the cutoff is changed and then the law adjusted to reflect that - THEN we will have an equal playing field.

And my main point is that I DON'T want a redshirted child taught differently than my on-time child - I want them ALL TAUGHT to the curriculum dictated by the area cutoff- in my case - to 4 and young 5 year olds. I want that teacher to have a group of kids closer in age and knowledge (without having 18 - 20 months additional learning) - so that his/her job is easier without having to 'challenge' kids who really should be in 1st grade. My child will unfortunately be given less of that teacher's time if she has half a class of should-be-first-graders - and that IMO is the school and state's fault for allowing parental choice. And, yes - my teacher will be hearing about it from me, DAILY if necessary. People who want their child challenged would be sending them on time IMO. And you should not be able to have it both ways (the most mature, knowledgeable, emotionally older, taller, most coordinated, etc) child AND also be taught at his/her "first grade" academic level.

This is an excellent post. I totally agree with you.

 

[momto2girls]

I can't believe that kindergarten students are having so many expectations put onto them. In my DDs' school here in British Columbia, the K curriculum was VERY socially based...there was mat time where they did some basic counting and addition, and they learned the letters of the alphabet, but it wasn't until the second half of the year that they started a reading program at home. Students were NOT expected to read before Grade 1 (and neither of my kids did).

For those of you with a background in educational theory, I very much agree with Piaget - when children are mentally mature enough to learn something, it will come easily. Yes, we could teach the average four year old to read, but it is much easier (and faster) to teach a six year old.

Instead of fighting to hold kids back because they are not "ready" for kindergarten, maybe we should be making kindergarten a more appropriate place for kids at that age with average abilities and social skills. It seems like the pressure put on students from the "No Child Left Behind" policy is just resulting in kids experiencing failure and frustration at an earlier age!

Heather

PS - In case you're wondering, by Christmas in Grade 1, DD9 was reading beginning chapter books. She just finished the 7th Harry Potter series. Her 'delayed start' in reading certainly hasn't hurt her (she's also a November birthday and started K at age 4).

Bravo!! I totally agree with you! I totally agree that kids are being pushed to do things too early these days.

 

[hmacmahony]

Sadly I agree kids are pushed way too soon, knowing our kindergarten is very academic is one of the reasons we choose to hold our kids until they were a year older.

Bravo!! I totally agree with you! I totally agree that kids are being pushed to do things too early these days.

 

[dogluva]

States actually CAN tell you what to do - many have a law requiring a child to be in school (home or other) by age 6.....all I want is for them to 'firm up' the legality of the younger kids so that parents don't have a say at age 5 either.

Go ahead and change the date to Aug 1st, June 1st or even March 1st....but then the situation will still persist when kids with January b-days are held back due to not being 'ready'. But if the cutoff is changed and then the law adjusted to reflect that - THEN we will have an equal playing field.

And my main point is that I DON'T want a redshirted child taught differently than my on-time child - I want them ALL TAUGHT to the curriculum dictated by the area cutoff- in my case - to 4 and young 5 year olds. I want that teacher to have a group of kids closer in age and knowledge (without having 18 - 20 months additional learning) - so that his/her job is easier without having to 'challenge' kids who really should be in 1st grade. My child will unfortunately be given less of that teacher's time if she has half a class of should-be-first-graders - and that IMO is the school and state's fault for allowing parental choice. And, yes - my teacher will be hearing about it from me, DAILY if necessary. People who want their child challenged would be sending them on time IMO. And you should not be able to have it both ways (the most mature, knowledgeable, emotionally older, taller, most coordinated, etc) child AND also be taught at his/her "first grade" academic level.

You should see it when they get to high school. My thirteen year old freshman (who wore a men's size 14 shoe) told me that he was in homeroom with kids two, three years older than him. Those that were not sent to K, then repeated a grade in middle school, flunked Freshman English, etc. How is this fair for my child who is barely going through puberty.

It happens. When he graduated some of the kids were 20. No lie. These kids should not be in High School.

I don't believe in holding kids back from K (there are some exceptions). Especially those that are months away from the cut-off.

This whole thing has gotten way out of hand. Parents all want to give their babies an edge at the expense of those of us who follow the cut-off dates.

 

[dogluva]

Sadly I agree kids are pushed way too soon, knowing our kindergarten is very academic is one of the reasons we choose to hold our kids until they were a year older.

What? A year older? When are their birthdays? January? I can maybe understand Sept., Oct. Nov. But anything before this is not fair to those kids that are a year younger.

I don't get the whole shy thing, either. Shy is a personality trait. My oldest daugther at 15 is shy. She did not grow out of it the year she was in k.

I didn't grow out of it until college. Thank God my mother didn't wait til I matured.

 

[Mom2Punkin]

My son turned 5 at the end of October - tested ready for Kindergarten but I opted to send him to young 5s (this is betw. pre-K and K). It was the best decision I ever made!

 

[chrisw127]

NO offense, really, but I held my oldest, and will hold the other three as well (they are all within days, to a few weeks of the cutoff).
As far as me holding my child back, and it affecting your child, really I don't care. I am doing what is BEST FOR MY CHILD, not what is best for your child. We put a lot of thought, time, and research into our decesion, and are 100% happy with it.
My oldest started Kindergarten this year, she was 6 right after it started, she is NOT the oldest at all. In my district kindergarteners are pushed very hard during the day academically. Kindergarten is not the same as it was when I went many years ago, most days my kid does not even get play time, they have been outside once (they are also half days), and gym once a week, so, there is lots of work time. She did go into kindergarten reading, but has not been bored once, I work with her at home to challenge her.
You need to sit and really talk with teachers, (everyone we talked to in our district recommened holding a year), look at the curriculum, is it full or half day, ask the school district if most people hold or send their kids, and most of all go with your gut.
I firmly believe giving my child an extra year to be a CHILD, to play, and have very little commitments, will never hurt her. Kids grow up way to fast as it is, and I know we did what was best for my child.
Good luck, it is a hard decesion, but if you do your research, and listen to your heat, you will find what is best for you and your child.

Sing it, sister! Most everyone I know agreed with my decision to redshirt my son (it's almost mandatory here anyway) but a couple did not and were very vocal about it, which is funny when you think about it since they weren't going to have to deal with the fallout. All those naysayers won't be backing you up when you're in the principal's office talking about your kid not keeping up or being able to sit still. You have to do what's best for YOUR child.

By the way, much of this trend is the result of No Child Left Behind, so blame Bush. That's probably why the Canadian examples above are not really applicable here, nor are examples from 10 or so years ago, since kindergarten has become more rigorous in an effort to meet standardized test scores. There's an excellent NY Times article on this subject (you can probably google it). Other pieces on the subject ran in major newspapers across the country about 6 months ago in the footsteps of the NY Times article, so there's a lot of information out there. One thing that researchers found is that children from better educated, more affluent parents were more likely to be redshirted. Also, in areas where there was a lot of competition academically (for example, here in Chapel Hill), kids were more likely to attend kindergarten later.

 

[dogluva]

Sing it, sister! Most everyone I know agreed with my decision to redshirt my son (it's almost mandatory here anyway) but a couple did not and were very vocal about it, which is funny when you think about it since they weren't going to have to deal with the fallout. All those naysayers won't be backing you up when you're in the principal's office talking about your kid not keeping up or being able to sit still. You have to do what's best for YOUR child.

Again, if it is mandatory why is sending a four year old allowed? This I don't get.

I did not deal with any fallout. I was never in the principals office (my kids are sophmores in college and H.S.).

I am doing what is best for my child and that is letting him learn with his/her peers not kids ready for braces in K.

 

[chrisw127]

Again, if it is mandatory why is sending a four year old allowed? This I don't get.

I did not deal with any fallout. I was never in the principals office (my kids are sophmores in college and H.S.).

I am doing what is best for my child and that is letting him learn with his/her peers not kids ready for braces in K.

One reason it's allowed is that it takes a very long time to change these types of things and there are good reasons not to, particularly when you consider that for many parents, paying for an extra year of preschool is prohibitive. So what you have, in effect, is a system that benefits parents who can (and will) hold their kids back and that penalizes at least some of the kids in the same age range that will go. There's data to back this up--I'm not just pulling this out my hat. Kids who are on the older range generally do better on standardized tests, at least early on. There's some argument about whether that trend continues throughout their education.

Also, and I don't mean to be argumentative here, but a lot has changed since your kids were in school. If kindergarten was like it was when I was a kid, I'd have sent my son. But it's not.

 

[Mouse House Mama]

One reason it's allowed is that it takes a very long time to change these types of things and there are good reasons not to, particularly when you consider that for many parents, paying for an extra year of preschool is prohibitive. So what you have, in effect, is a system that benefits parents who can (and will) hold their kids back and that penalizes at least some of the kids in the same age range that will go. There's data to back this up--I'm not just pulling this out my hat. Kids who are on the older range generally do better on standardized tests, at least early on. There's some argument about whether that trend continues throughout their education.

Also, and I don't mean to be argumentative here, but a lot has changed since your kids were in school. If kindergarten was like it was when I was a kid, I'd have sent my son. But it's not.

Not trying to be a jerk here but of course the kids will do better on standardized tests. They are older! I have a kid in Kindergarten so I have some experience on what they are now learning. Yes it is much more involved then when I was a kid but the kids are ready for it. Children will always be at different levels just as adults will.

 

[Camno's Mama]

Well, if the cutoff is Sept. 1, then the people that are keeping their July babies home are only within a couple of months. You are saying that's okay with a later cutoff, but seem to be very bothered by the earlier ones. It's really not about age...it's about readiness. And while I agree that you can't wait for them to mature all the way, you can wait until they are more mature. And, yes, shy kids are shy kids. You can't change that. But when they are very bothered by being shy, then you have to take that into account on their readiness.

Also, I have seen a lot of comments made about size. While that is not an issue for me, I can understand why that would be in issue for some. Babies are born extremely premature more and more these days. Often those children are farther behind in size, etc. People do have extenuating circumstances.

Do you really believe that most people are doing this to put their children on top? Because I really don't believe that is the case for most. We just don't want our children to only be keeping their heads above the water. If your children were ready to go to K, then they were ready. Just because some kids are older, it doesn't take away from your child. As a teacher, I know that children aren't compared to other children in the way that you think. There is basically a checklist of standards that are met or not met. Standards don't change just because there are more six year olds in a K class.

As for parents that are only doing this to give an advantage to their children in sports, which I think is probably pretty miniscule, then I prefer not to be lumped into that grouping. You're always going to have supercompetitive parents that do anything to get their kids ahead. It's been referred to in this thread a lot, and I just don't think that's a popular reason to keep you kid home.

Also, just because we keep our kids home doesn't mean we've lost faith in their ability to cope in school. We do give our kids credit. I think the statements that are being made here that insinuate that people keep their kids home because they don't think they're good enough are pretty much in line with name calling. As parents, we all feel a protective instinct toward our children that makes us want to shield them from getting hurt. Maybe I am just giving into that instinct, but it's not because I think he is anything less than wonderful.

I guess I did not consider other children when I made this decision. But even when I do consider that part of it, I really don't believe it hurts the kids that are ready to be on the younger side. It's not that I don't care...I guess I just don't think my son or any child that has been taught right from wrong will be any less respectful toward the younger kids. I never worried that my son would be picked on or such just because he's younger. And I really don't believe that most teachers base things on the age of the student. In fact, when I student taught in first grade, I couldn't have told you who the youngest or the oldest kid in the class was. We worked with each student as an individual. Age was not a concern.

Whew...this was a long one. Blah, blah, blah.

 

[DISNEYFOS]

I agree that there are lots of different opinions on this and that is OK - I think everyone is just sharing their opinions (some of them emotional opinions) with the OP in good faith.

I'm not sure how you could really not understand some people being angry about this? Think about it - my 4 year old girl will be in her classroom on time, that she is SUPPOSED to be in and she will have lots and lots of 6 year olds - some 7 by the end of the school year - in that same classroom....all because (in some, not all cases) of some vague 'not ready' determination. Don't you think that will change and hinder how that teacher instructs my child? It has to - these kids will know enough academically to be in 1st grade with 18 months additional learning - so it will be tough, if not impossible, to stick to strictly the kindergarten curriculum for my and others who should be in the class kids.

Just think about it - being the youngest affected you in your educational career - just think if it was today - and how it would have affected you to have that many more kids 18 plus months older than you??? That is the situation that parents who redshirt (only those without real reasons I'm referring to) put the rest of us parents, and our children, in - of course we wouldn't be happy with that. And think about it - someone - you, your child or someone else's child will be the youngest in that classroom. All I want is an equal playing field - kids who are designated in that district as ready - going on time -to give all the kids an equal chance. But many want to tip that scale and make it unequal on day one.

I completely agree with this post.

A kingergarten teacher should be prepared to teach 5 year olds..whether they are younger fives or older fives. The curriculum is based on their varing ages (within 12 months) and abilities. If your child makes the cutoff chances are their are others exactly the same as him (or her) maturity wise. Quite possibly half the class.

I'm not sure about others, but our district has mandatory screening for ALL students, i say if screening says they are ready..Its time to send them. There has got to be more regulation here..before kindergarten teachers are force to teach to a 2+ year age span.