OT - Kindergarten for my 4 yo this September

[princessmom29]

clearly yoou and I have a different sense of what entitlement is, giving MY child the best change to achieve educationally is NOT a sense of entitlement. I am not sure how setting MY child up for a struggle is school is self centered.
My child would take up even more time had they gone into school as the youngest, because they would of needed oodles and oodle of help, then you would of been on here complaining that those kids take up all the precious learning time from your child.
No, not all my kids have the same birthday, but they all do have birthdays within 5 weeks of the cutoff date.
And for what its worth our state is changing the cutoff date to Sept 1, in the next year or so, and TWO of my kid would not of made that cutoff. So, clearly I am not the ONLY person who feels this way about cutoff dates.

Taking away that choice from parents is like telling me I HAVE to vaccinate, or I HAVE to only eat organic, or that I HAVE to take a million trips to disney when my kids are young. Its called free will to do what I want with MY kids, as I see fit. We are well within the law by with holding our kids who need the extra year home to grow a little bit.

Like I said before, EVERY SINGLE teacher, and even the principal we spoke with recommended redshirting, why? Because kindergarten is HARD, it is not like it used to be. The kindergarten in our district pushs very hard, we are a very academic school district, and they expect a lot of those poor little kids. And, even the school district advocates redshirting because they have seen too many kids struggle and fail, and be held back because they are just not ready.

You could really say its a vicious circle, starting with no child left behind, and standardized tests.

I will not sacrifice my childs well being, and education for the good of a whole, and if you think that is selfish, and entitlement, then clearly we have VERY DIFFERENT views on what those words mean.

I don't think you read my entier post befoer flying off the handle or you would have seen that it doesn't apply to your situation, but your comments about redshirting in general. All of your children are within 5 weeks of the cutoff. My porblem is with parents of children who have been 5 for 6 months or more when the year starts and hold them out to give them an edge. Different situation alltogether. Prehaps I should have been more specific or seperated my thoughts better.

It is so strange to me that some people on this thread think they can read the minds of parents who didn't sent their child to kindergarten in some cases. comments like "it is really the parents who want them home with them" or implying that the parents are doing it to give some sort of advantage.

how the heck do you know?

Each family knows their own child and needs to do what is right for them. My son did make the cut-off (barely), but he was absolutely NOT mature enough, and the school agreed with us. He has some health issues and was having 2 surgeries in what would have been his kindergarten year. We enrolled him in a private school who worked with us on his absences, and he'll attend kindergarten at the public school starting in the fall.

And yes, he'll be 6 (barely) when he starts. oh the horror! So fine, go ahead and judge us, but we are his parents and we did the right thing for HIM. We didn't take the decision lightly, and it was a huge financial decision to pay the $12000 in private school for this year.

I also think kindergarten varies a lot my district. Some districts are still only half day, and have cut offs in December, which is so unusual to me. So obviously those kindergartens operate a bit differently than our district, with its August cut-off, and a full day program.

I know people in this area are doing it because they have told me as much. Several parents of much older K's have told me that they held them out so that they would be more successful in sports, or closer to the top of the class academically. I would assume that there are others out there that share their thinking. I can only speak for myself, but I wasn't trageting anyone on this thread specifically. I don't think holding a normal 5 1/2 year old out of K is socially responsible, or the right thing to do. I feel it is unfair. I won't apologize for that, but I am sorry if anyone felt I was targeting them.
Again, your child is not a normal 5 year old. He had underlying medical issues that made holding him back necessary. I am talking ONLY about normal, healthy ready for K 5 1/2 year olds or older that are held out. There is no reason to do that other than because mom wants them home or wants them to have an edge.

 

[pommfrites]

(I didn't like the idea of sending a 17 year old off to college!)
I would start your DS now and see what happens. It can't hurt.

Hey I had a midOctober birthday and was 17 in college. If there was no learning problems or other behavior issues, I wouldn't have a problem sending my daughter (who has a late Dec. birthday, the 28th!) to college at 17. In fact, where we are currently stationed for DH job, she can't start pre-K til this fall, even though she already knows the information taught in the 3yo class. My DS is in the 4yo class and will be in K, this year..so I know what they taught him last year in class and tried to keep her on track. When we move in the next year back to our home state, she could have started this past year and I'll have to get her tested to see if she can be placed in the older class. I know some people will argue for holding a kid back, but the birthday argument is moot to me. I don't think the birthdate should dictate your intelligence or readiness for school. I had a mid-Oct. birthday and was in advanced courses all through school (starting in 1st grade). Everyone in my group, except for 2, were late bloomer birthdays. So, sorry to tangent off, but I think starting a kid and being able to drop them back is a viable option..and only You really know if your child is ready for school.

 

[brymolmom]

We did a lot of talking to people for the few years before we had to make this choice for our kids, we probably talked to over 100 teachers, yes we talked to our principal, and a few teachers in our district, but we also spoke to many, many many teacher, principals, educators NOT in our district, who DON"T care about our test scores.
STILL EVERY SINGLE TIME (but one) the educator said hold a year! It will NEVER hurt to hold a year, where it can very well backfire if you send.

I also come from a whole family of educators, and they all agreed as well that holding is the best thing for kids close to the cutoff date (in most, not all cases).

So, I don't put a lot of stock into someone who I KNOW hasn't done the research into this subject that I have. Hours, and hours of reading online, talking to educators, other parents, etc, I just don't put a lot of stock into someone's opinion who I can almost guarantee has done very little research. Other than the fact that they would push their child, for the good of the whole class (eye roll)

I find it interesting that you think, because someone disagrees with you, that they have not done research....I, too, have done hours and hours of research and I still believe in an even playing field. And yes, I've spoken with all the people who say 'it never hurts to hold back' but I still maintain that this is the CYA statement - if they tell you to send and your child then has issues....well, it's very easy to say 'he/she's too young I shouldn't have sent'. Much easier to recommend to hold back and not be in a tough spot if any issues arise.

And I promise you I did not push my child. Nor are the other posters who disagree with you. The thing here is that there ARE regulations out there already. A child needs to be in school before they are 7. All I'm asking is that the regulations broaden to include the 4, 5, 6 year old ranges, so that all kids are given a fair chance. It really isn't that much more than what is in place already...But will have huge impact and make it a better situation for teachers, kids, sports players in older grades, etc.

And, yes, I realize that this isn't going to convince you. But I also realize that you likely have done the same amount of research as I have. I know that people can disagree even when faced with the same information.

I don't put a lot of stock in people rolling their eyes at the horror of considering the good of the entire class. The fact is - if your child is at least average or close to average in all areas - it should not be pushing to send on time. And if it is - I hope you are working with a professional in the lacking areas. This is where I get a lot of people - their child 'isn't ready' but when I ask what doctors/therapists are helping to get the child ready - NOTHING. Well, if your child doesn't need extra help, he/she was ready!

And again I maintain that I don't care if you send your 8 year old to class with my 4 year old as long as you don't care that he/she is being taught 4 and 5 year old material. The only time I care is if you insist that 1st, 2nd, etc. grade work be taught to your child who could be in 1st grade if you really wanted 1st grade work for him/her.

 

[hmacmahony]

Cleary, sincey you have spoken to hundreds of educators, and clearly because you have done your research, you are aware of the numbers then??

high school drop out rates, teen pregnacy, suicide, drinking, smoking, not going onto college..you then know that the numbers reflect that the younger a child is when they start school, the more likely they are to fall into those bad things, and its not by a little bit, its by almost 70%.

But, I also know that has a lot to do with parenting, and a million other factors, just stateing the facts here.

You also know that IT IS NORMAL TO NOT READ UNTIL THE AGE OF SEVEN!! Yes, not 4, not 5, not even 6 but SEVEN!!!!! That is NORMAL!! But, its being pushed on 4 year olds (heck, even infants with that stupid your baby can read program).

Many 4 year old just don't have the fine motor skills to hold a pencil and write their names, is that abnormal? Nope, its 100% normal, its called being developmentally ready, doesn't make them stupid, or need extra help for something they will pick up, when they are developmentally ready.

If you insist, my kid who might be the slightest bit ahead of your kid can't have extra help, then I absolutley insist your kid who isn't developmentally ready to hold a pencil the correct way, or read should't recive the special help either.

Amazing how you are all good for sacrificing someone elses child for the good of the class, AS LONG as it doesn't interfere with YOUR child....

You can maintain that its people covering their butts when it comes to holding back a child, but MANY of these people we spoke to had never met our child, didn't know our situation, we asked in general, what have you seen as an educator. I said before, every (but one) educator we talked to said times have changed, pressures are being put on kids younger and younger and younger. Maybe your kids kindergarten plays plahdoh all day, and talks about colors and numbers, maybe thats what your district is all about.
Not mine, my district is very academic, and expects an awful lot out of those kindergarten classes.

I just don't get how its okay that we redshirted our kids because they all fell within 5 weeks of the cutoff date, but lets say we had a kid with a july birthday....well, thats only 4 weeks from mine with the earliest birthday, really, you think those 4 weeks makes that big of a deal??? 28 days?!?!? Makes that kid so much more ready, so much smarter to be able to go to kindergarten???

If a parent wants to hold their child for whatever reason, its their choice, and if your kid is ready for kindergarten, then it won't affect your kid.

I find it interesting that you think, because someone disagrees with you, that they have not done research....I, too, have done hours and hours of research and I still believe in an even playing field. And yes, I've spoken with all the people who say 'it never hurts to hold back' but I still maintain that this is the CYA statement - if they tell you to send and your child then has issues....well, it's very easy to say 'he/she's too young I shouldn't have sent'. Much easier to recommend to hold back and not be in a tough spot if any issues arise.

And I promise you I did not push my child. Nor are the other posters who disagree with you. The thing here is that there ARE regulations out there already. A child needs to be in school before they are 7. All I'm asking is that the regulations broaden to include the 4, 5, 6 year old ranges, so that all kids are given a fair chance. It really isn't that much more than what is in place already...But will have huge impact and make it a better situation for teachers, kids, sports players in older grades, etc.

And, yes, I realize that this isn't going to convince you. But I also realize that you likely have done the same amount of research as I have. I know that people can disagree even when faced with the same information.

I don't put a lot of stock in people rolling their eyes at the horror of considering the good of the entire class. The fact is - if your child is at least average or close to average in all areas - it should not be pushing to send on time. And if it is - I hope you are working with a professional in the lacking areas. This is where I get a lot of people - their child 'isn't ready' but when I ask what doctors/therapists are helping to get the child ready - NOTHING. Well, if your child doesn't need extra help, he/she was ready!

And again I maintain that I don't care if you send your 8 year old to class with my 4 year old as long as you don't care that he/she is being taught 4 and 5 year old material. The only time I care is if you insist that 1st, 2nd, etc. grade work be taught to your child who could be in 1st grade if you really wanted 1st grade work for him/her.

 

[brymolmom]

Cleary, sincey you have spoken to hundreds of educators, and clearly because you have done your research, you are aware of the numbers then??

high school drop out rates, teen pregnacy, suicide, drinking, smoking, not going onto college..you then know that the numbers reflect that the younger a child is when they start school, the more likely they are to fall into those bad things, and its not by a little bit, its by almost 70%.

But, I also know that has a lot to do with parenting, and a million other factors, just stateing the facts here.

You also know that IT IS NORMAL TO NOT READ UNTIL THE AGE OF SEVEN!! Yes, not 4, not 5, not even 6 but SEVEN!!!!! That is NORMAL!! But, its being pushed on 4 year olds (heck, even infants with that stupid your baby can read program).

Many 4 year old just don't have the fine motor skills to hold a pencil and write their names, is that abnormal? Nope, its 100% normal, its called being developmentally ready, doesn't make them stupid, or need extra help for something they will pick up, when they are developmentally ready.

If you insist, my kid who might be the slightest bit ahead of your kid can't have extra help, then I absolutley insist your kid who isn't developmentally ready to hold a pencil the correct way, or read should't recive the special help either.

Amazing how you are all good for sacrificing someone elses child for the good of the class, AS LONG as it doesn't interfere with YOUR child....

You can maintain that its people covering their butts when it comes to holding back a child, but MANY of these people we spoke to had never met our child, didn't know our situation, we asked in general, what have you seen as an educator. I said before, every (but one) educator we talked to said times have changed, pressures are being put on kids younger and younger and younger. Maybe your kids kindergarten plays plahdoh all day, and talks about colors and numbers, maybe thats what your district is all about.
Not mine, my district is very academic, and expects an awful lot out of those kindergarten classes.

I just don't get how its okay that we redshirted our kids because they all fell within 5 weeks of the cutoff date, but lets say we had a kid with a july birthday....well, thats only 4 weeks from mine with the earliest birthday, really, you think those 4 weeks makes that big of a deal??? 28 days?!?!? Makes that kid so much more ready, so much smarter to be able to go to kindergarten???

If a parent wants to hold their child for whatever reason, its their choice, and if your kid is ready for kindergarten, then it won't affect your kid.

But my kid is SUPPOSED to be in that class...and you OPTED OUT of having your child receive more challenging material. So you were given your chance and chose against it - so, YES, I don't expect you to be able to ask for it now.

But, overall, all I want is even playing field (natural 'curve') for ALL KIDS in the class - not mine, not yours, not any individual.

I have seen all the numbers and as you stated there are way too many other factors involved for me to believe that it is the redshirting that is the issue. Who, exactly, do you think is more likely to redshirt? The involved parent - YES! The stay at home parent - YES! The suburban parent - YES! The higher socioeconomic parent - YES! So there is no way to really tie any of the 'numbers' to redshirting. I DID look for studies that would elminate many of the other factors - and find a good 'general' population to consider in its statistics - and I was able to find not one.

And why do you think it is that Kindergarteners are being pushed so hard today.....well for many reasons I am sure but one of them SURELY is that there are 6 year olds in Kindergarten now! So it would be obsurd to have them playing with play-doh and discussing colors and numbers. So really, the very reason that you are redshirting, IMO, is one of the major causes of the reason existing in the first place.

And as I have stated in other posts - it is not a few days or weeks that is the factor, it is the shift of the entire class to be on the older end. It comes down to way more than weeks in many cases. MAYBE Not your particular case - but where is the 'cutoff' - if you hold a child back who is within weeks...then the next parent holds back the child who is within a couple months...then the next parent holds back the child who is within 6 months....endless and neverending since there is no 'cutoff' to help teachers and students remain at least somewhat even. Oh yeah - there IS a cutoff, it is just being overlooked and ignored.

 

[princessmom29]

I hve never known a single normal 7 year old sent to school on time who cannot read at all. That would mean they were in second grade and still not reading. It is NOT normal in today's society for a child not to read until the age of 7. That might have been the in my parents generation, but NOT now. The reason for the difference in not developmental. It is the fact that K was not even offerd to most of them. My mother and all he siblings started 1st grade at 6. That is why they didn't learn to read until then. They were capable at 5, but weren't in school. The same holds true for children today who are held out of school at 5. The is no reason a normal 5 year old cannot be taught to read, other than no one bothering, or a parent that believes it cannot be done. I have never failed to teach a 5 year old without some sort of learning disability to read on some level, when the parents are not sabatoging my efforts. They ARE developmentally ready and capable of learning. The earilier the better. Young children are so receptive and ethusiastic about learning. The world is an open book to them just waiting to be discovered. The longer you wait to tap that potential, the more thier enthusaism fades. The key is an enviornment were everyone, the school and the parents, are supporting those efforts. I think you are selling a child short to believe they cannot do it because they can, and there is no reason to deny them that knowledge. I was a dyslexic child with a June birthday. I had just turned 5 on entering K and had no preschool. I knew how to read when i got there from listening to my mom read books to me. No had to actively teach me. No one even figured out I was dyslexic untill I got to high school. Our kids are capable, if we give them the chance.

 

[hmacmahony]

It is COMPLETLY developmentaly appropriate for a 7 year old to JUST be learning to read.
Look at countrys where they don't even start reading until later than the us, look at their programs. Kids start to learn later, and do better all through school.
I am not selling a child short, I am supporting letting my 4 year old play with playdoh for a year, rather than having site words crammed down their throats.

I have 3 girls, who all read, grew up in the EXACT same family, nothing has changed in how much, how often, etc when it comes to reading to them. One read by 4, and now has a reading level off the charts, the next didn't read until you guessed it, 6 1/2, (normal by the way), now reading off the charts less than a year later. The third will start kindergarten next year, just having turned 6, she also reads okay, simple books at this point (dick and jane, etc), but I am sure by mid year next year she will have picked it up much faster.

We followed the NATURAL, developmental curve all our girls have, and follwed their instincts, and allowed them to learn at their pace (before school started), and all read (from very much, to slightly) before school started. We didn't sit for hours with flashcards, and your baby can read dvds, we played with blocks, playdoh, musical insturments, etc, all which can be used in a way to promote prereading skills.

I HATE flashcards, I hate the pushing parents do on their kids, and you see it in every form, baby einstein dvds which are supposed to make your kid smarter (even though a baby should watch NO NO NO tv), which, guess what? They don't, lets give the money back. To books that talk to your kid, so you don't have to even read to them. To video games made for INFANTS!

SICK, SICK, SICK, SICK!!!

Parents don't have to do anything, and if you don't think thats not pushing our kids....to grow up to fast, then we very much disagree.

I hve never known a single normal 7 year old sent to school on time who cannot read at all. That would mean they were in second grade and still not reading. It is NOT normal in today's society for a child not to read until the age of 7. That might have been the in my parents generation, but NOT now. The reason for the difference in not developmental. It is the fact that K was not even offerd to most of them. My mother and all he siblings started 1st grade at 6. That is why they didn't learn to read until then. They were capable at 5, but weren't in school. The same holds true for children today who are held out of school at 5. The is no reason a normal 5 year old cannot be taught to read, other than no one bothering, or a parent that believes it cannot be done. I have never failed to teach a 5 year old without some sort of learning disability to read on some level, when the parents are not sabatoging my efforts. They ARE developmentally ready and capable of learning. The earilier the better. Young children are so receptive and ethusiastic about learning. The world is an open book to them just waiting to be discovered. The longer you wait to tap that potential, the more thier enthusaism fades. The key is an enviornment were everyone, the school and the parents, are supporting those efforts. I think you are selling a child short to believe they cannot do it because they can, and there is no reason to deny them that knowledge. I was a dyslexic child with a June birthday. I had just turned 5 on entering K and had no preschool. I knew how to read when i got there from listening to my mom read books to me. No had to actively teach me. No one even figured out I was dyslexic untill I got to high school. Our kids are capable, if we give them the chance.

 

[hmacmahony]

My kid is supposed to be there to, YOU just don't agree with it.
It is perfectly fine to hold a child back a year, no law to change it. Plus, many schools are changing their cutoff dates so kids start at 5, not 4. My kid has had the same amount of schooling as your kid, not sure how you aren't picking up on that. How about a kid whos birthday is Oct 2 (cutoff oct 1), they could very well be ahead, and need help, do you deny? My kids birthday might be sept 29, those 3 days make that big of a difference? How about the kid who comes in with a birthday of may thats ahead? Do they get the extra challenge if needed? If a child needs to be challenged, I am appauled that YOU would think its okay for them to suck it up and not be because of their birthday.


And I 100% believe that kindergarten is not the way it is because there are 6 year olds in kindergarten. Its because of no child left behind, standardized tests, and this ungodly push to make our kids the smartest, best kids out there, when in reailty the school system if failing lots of kids every single year. NCLB, is one of the biggest flops there ever was, and hurts every single child in they system. Look at our graduation rates, our going to college rates, they are sadly very low for this huge push on education we are supposed to have in this country.

But my kid is SUPPOSED to be in that class...and you OPTED OUT of having your child receive more challenging material. So you were given your chance and chose against it - so, YES, I don't expect you to be able to ask for it now.

But, overall, all I want is even playing field (natural 'curve') for ALL KIDS in the class - not mine, not yours, not any individual.

I have seen all the numbers and as you stated there are way too many other factors involved for me to believe that it is the redshirting that is the issue. Who, exactly, do you think is more likely to redshirt? The involved parent - YES! The stay at home parent - YES! The suburban parent - YES! The higher socioeconomic parent - YES! So there is no way to really tie any of the 'numbers' to redshirting. I DID look for studies that would elminate many of the other factors - and find a good 'general' population to consider in its statistics - and I was able to find not one.

And why do you think it is that Kindergarteners are being pushed so hard today.....well for many reasons I am sure but one of them SURELY is that there are 6 year olds in Kindergarten now! So it would be obsurd to have them playing with play-doh and discussing colors and numbers. So really, the very reason that you are redshirting, IMO, is one of the major causes of the reason existing in the first place.

And as I have stated in other posts - it is not a few days or weeks that is the factor, it is the shift of the entire class to be on the older end. It comes down to way more than weeks in many cases. MAYBE Not your particular case - but where is the 'cutoff' - if you hold a child back who is within weeks...then the next parent holds back the child who is within a couple months...then the next parent holds back the child who is within 6 months....endless and neverending since there is no 'cutoff' to help teachers and students remain at least somewhat even. Oh yeah - there IS a cutoff, it is just being overlooked and ignored.

 

[jodifla]

I hve never known a single normal 7 year old sent to school on time who cannot read at all. That would mean they were in second grade and still not reading. It is NOT normal in today's society for a child not to read until the age of 7. That might have been the in my parents generation, but NOT now. The reason for the difference in not developmental. It is the fact that K was not even offerd to most of them. My mother and all he siblings started 1st grade at 6. That is why they didn't learn to read until then. They were capable at 5, but weren't in school. The same holds true for children today who are held out of school at 5. The is no reason a normal 5 year old cannot be taught to read, other than no one bothering, or a parent that believes it cannot be done. I have never failed to teach a 5 year old without some sort of learning disability to read on some level, when the parents are not sabatoging my efforts. They ARE developmentally ready and capable of learning. The earilier the better. Young children are so receptive and ethusiastic about learning. The world is an open book to them just waiting to be discovered. The longer you wait to tap that potential, the more thier enthusaism fades. The key is an enviornment were everyone, the school and the parents, are supporting those efforts. I think you are selling a child short to believe they cannot do it because they can, and there is no reason to deny them that knowledge. I was a dyslexic child with a June birthday. I had just turned 5 on entering K and had no preschool. I knew how to read when i got there from listening to my mom read books to me. No had to actively teach me. No one even figured out I was dyslexic untill I got to high school. Our kids are capable, if we give them the chance.

I find your entrenched attitudes on this disturbing, especially since you are a teacher. There's actually plenty of research that suggests that there ARE some children who are wired to read later, around second or third grade. Upside Down Brilliance and Right-Brained Children in a Left Brained World detail some of this.


And here's a quick read study on reading later:

http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/research-finds-no-advantage-learning-read-age-five/5/33888


I had a friend whose son's teacher was all over her because he wasn't reading in second grade. She turned my poor friend into a distraught mess...and tried to hold the child back. Late in the year, like a lightbulb switched on, he started reading. No one had really done anything different.

My inlaws teach at a school for the gifted, and they were the first to say that lots of very smart kids read later, around 7.

 

[princessmom29]

It is COMPLETLY developmentaly appropriate for a 7 year old to JUST be learning to read.
Look at countrys where they don't even start reading until later than the us, look at their programs. Kids start to learn later, and do better all through school.
I am not selling a child short, I am supporting letting my 4 year old play with playdoh for a year, rather than having site words crammed down their throats.

I have 3 girls, who all read, grew up in the EXACT same family, nothing has changed in how much, how often, etc when it comes to reading to them. One read by 4, and now has a reading level off the charts, the next didn't read until you guessed it, 6 1/2, (normal by the way), now reading off the charts less than a year later. The third will start kindergarten next year, just having turned 6, she also reads okay, simple books at this point (dick and jane, etc), but I am sure by mid year next year she will have picked it up much faster.

We followed the NATURAL, developmental curve all our girls have, and follwed their instincts, and allowed them to learn at their pace (before school started), and all read (from very much, to slightly) before school started. We didn't sit for hours with flashcards, and your baby can read dvds, we played with blocks, playdoh, musical insturments, etc, all which can be used in a way to promote prereading skills.

I HATE flashcards, I hate the pushing parents do on their kids, and you see it in every form, baby einstein dvds which are supposed to make your kid smarter (even though a baby should watch NO NO NO tv), which, guess what? They don't, lets give the money back. To books that talk to your kid, so you don't have to even read to them. To video games made for INFANTS!

SICK, SICK, SICK, SICK!!!

Parents don't have to do anything, and if you don't think thats not pushing our kids....to grow up to fast, then we very much disagree.

Developmentally appropriate and the norm for our society are 2 different measures. It this case one has a much larger range than the other. Reading is a developmentally appropriate skill anywhere from about 4 to 6 or 7. In our society where there is ready access to learning early the norm is more toward the beginning of that range. Different countries have different socieeconomic and cultural norms, and different levels of access to early learning.
We agree on one thing at least. I HATE flashcards. Never,ever use them. YUCK. Learning should be a natural fun process that happens all the time, not just in school. Absolutely. All I am saying is that there is no reason to deny a child access to learning. I am not saying push flashcards DVDs ect on them, but answer their questions, talk to them, read to them, let them learn everything their little minds want to take in. Don't say "he/she isn't ready for that", but rather give them the opportunity and see how they do in a no pressure atmosphere. My child learned to read at 4 and never touched a flashcard or drilled anything. It happened naturally through day to day activities. I have never had a normal child at 5 not pick up letter sounds and begin reading simple words when presented that way. I am not using flash cards and drills or rote instruction. More like presenting opportunities through daily activites for learning to take place. Things like taking an nature walk and discussing the names of the things we see, and what letters they start with, and the sound those letters make. When we get inside we might draw a picture of the favorite thing we saw and write that letter next to the picture. You would be amazed what kids pick up when you DON'T drill them. I don't think it is pushing to simply give them the opportunity to learn, and at 5 almost all children ARE ready for that opportunity. Putting it off until later doesn't benefit them.

 

[princessmom29]

I find your entrenched attitudes on this disturbing, especially since you are a teacher. There's actually plenty of research that suggests that there ARE some children who are wired to read later, around second or third grade. Upside Down Brilliance and Right-Brained Children in a Left Brained World detail some of this.


And here's a quick read study on reading later:

http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/research-finds-no-advantage-learning-read-age-five/5/33888


I had a friend whose son's teacher was all over her because he wasn't reading in second grade. She turned my poor friend into a distraught mess...and tried to hold the child back. Late in the year, like a lightbulb switched on, he started reading. No one had really done anything different.

My inlaws teach at a school for the gifted, and they were the first to say that lots of very smart kids read later, around 7.

I am not saying that ALL children will necessarily read at x or y age, but am talking about the vast majority of kids. There are kids on a different developmental scale, but schools must by their nature set their standards according to what the vast majority of children should be able to do, and adapt from there for those outside the norm. Children who do not read until third grade are in this country a very, very small minority.

 

[dogluva]

I hve never known a single normal 7 year old sent to school on time who cannot read at all. That would mean they were in second grade and still not reading. It is NOT normal in today's society for a child not to read until the age of 7. That might have been the in my parents generation, but NOT now. The reason for the difference in not developmental. It is the fact that K was not even offerd to most of them. My mother and all he siblings started 1st grade at 6. That is why they didn't learn to read until then. They were capable at 5, but weren't in school. The same holds true for children today who are held out of school at 5. The is no reason a normal 5 year old cannot be taught to read, other than no one bothering, or a parent that believes it cannot be done. I have never failed to teach a 5 year old without some sort of learning disability to read on some level, when the parents are not sabatoging my efforts. They ARE developmentally ready and capable of learning. The earilier the better. Young children are so receptive and ethusiastic about learning. The world is an open book to them just waiting to be discovered. The longer you wait to tap that potential, the more thier enthusaism fades. The key is an enviornment were everyone, the school and the parents, are supporting those efforts. I think you are selling a child short to believe they cannot do it because they can, and there is no reason to deny them that knowledge. I was a dyslexic child with a June birthday. I had just turned 5 on entering K and had no preschool. I knew how to read when i got there from listening to my mom read books to me. No had to actively teach me. No one even figured out I was dyslexic untill I got to high school. Our kids are capable, if we give them the chance.

This is not always true-my children were all late readers despite having a mother for a teacher who tried hard to get them to be early readers. They did all read, but late-one started almost in third grade. She is in high school and is an honor student. Not one of my kids are LD (I would know-I am a sped teacher). Reading is developemental and not all four and five year olds read. My kids were busy learning other things. I don't think they were denied any "knowledge".

 

[Leajess99]

I hve never known a single normal 7 year old sent to school on time who cannot read at all. That would mean they were in second grade and still not reading. It is NOT normal in today's society for a child not to read until the age of 7. That might have been the in my parents generation, but NOT now. The reason for the difference in not developmental. It is the fact that K was not even offerd to most of them. My mother and all he siblings started 1st grade at 6. That is why they didn't learn to read until then. They were capable at 5, but weren't in school. The same holds true for children today who are held out of school at 5. The is no reason a normal 5 year old cannot be taught to read, other than no one bothering, or a parent that believes it cannot be done. I have never failed to teach a 5 year old without some sort of learning disability to read on some level, when the parents are not sabatoging my efforts. They ARE developmentally ready and capable of learning. The earilier the better. Young children are so receptive and ethusiastic about learning. The world is an open book to them just waiting to be discovered. The longer you wait to tap that potential, the more thier enthusaism fades. The key is an enviornment were everyone, the school and the parents, are supporting those efforts. I think you are selling a child short to believe they cannot do it because they can, and there is no reason to deny them that knowledge. I was a dyslexic child with a June birthday. I had just turned 5 on entering K and had no preschool. I knew how to read when i got there from listening to my mom read books to me. No had to actively teach me. No one even figured out I was dyslexic untill I got to high school. Our kids are capable, if we give them the chance.

Very well put and great post. Growing up we did not have the technology or learning programs there are today. Even in the 70s I was reading before 7. That seems quite odd to even think that a "normal" child is not ready to read until 7. My severely speech delayed daughter reads on an advanced level and she just turned 7 last month. It took years of speech therapy to get her on track and thankfully she was on track speech wise last year. We still have some mild speech issues but this child shocked everyone when her reading was not delayed (very normal with speech delayed kids) even though she had been.

It seems to me that there are a lot of people that just do not want to let go and let their children try and succeed. We had a parent that sent her son to kindergarten at 4 and yes he was held back but only because he already has developmental delays and they wanted to get him more help. The child very well could have gone on to 1st grade. Where I grew up we had Pre-1st for those kids that were not quite ready for 1st grade but had finished K. I think a lot more schools should offer that. The excuse by many about holding the child from starting so they don't struggle is a crock. There is no way to be sure a child will not struggle even if you do hold them back.

 

[Ava]

I don't have a school age child yet, and I'm sure every district is different, but reading these posts has made me curious - do schools not differentiate by ability within classes any more?

I distinctly remember all throughout elementary school there being different "reading groups" within each class. Even in Kindergarten (and mine was only 1/2 day) - the children who could read already were given a reading book (I even remember the name of it, "One Potato Two") and the children who couldn't read yet must have done pre-reading activities. I don't remember differentiation for any other subjects, but there were definitely different groups for reading in every one of my classes from K-5. In middle school obviously the structure changed, and we were differentiated by ability for every subject. (This was in public schools in the 1980s-90s.)

 

[princessmom29]

This is not always true-my children were all late readers despite having a mother for a teacher who tried hard to get them to be early readers. They did all read, but late-one started almost in third grade. She is in high school and is an honor student. Not one of my kids are LD (I would know-I am a sped teacher). Reading is developemental and not all four and five year olds read. My kids were busy learning other things. I don't think they were denied any "knowledge".

There is a difference between being outside the norm and being LD. There are children outside the norm. Of course there are, but how many others in her class were not reading in 3rd grade? Definitley not the majority of the class. It is not the norm in our society for a child not to read until 3rd grade.

 

[deerhart]

our public schools assess every child as they enter K. I thought that was standard? It is done to see where the child's strengths and weaknesses lie nad what skills they are coming in with. Every child sits down with a teacher adn goes through a series of activities either at registration on on the first day of school. It takes an hour per child or so. It is really not that hard to do.

You must be in a tiny school or have a lot of extra teachers with tons of free time around.

At our home school ALONE they average at least 100 kids per grade. Our district has 22 elementary schools and all the elementary schools have about the same number of students.

Now we do have screenings that parents can do with their 3 and 4 and 5 years olds that is voluntary and scheduled through the districts child find program. It is an overall readiness and disability screening, but its up to the parents to choose to have it done and schedule it. Also, the results do not go to the school unless its a SPED referral

 

[deerhart]

As for when a child will learn to read, well that is very much based on the individual child.

My almost 50% speech delayed child (mixed expressive-receptive delay), CAPD, ADHD-HI child taught himself to read at age 2. He is a visual based learner and learning to read was part of his compensation skills for both his speech delay and his CAPD. He's a very gifted child stuck in an educational system that is not designed for his type of learning (but we have great schools and teachers that really can push things towards his way!).

My younger child who is ADHD-C is probably just as gifted (though we have never had him tested but given statistics he is), was NEVER as interested in numbers, letters, reading etc.. as his older sibling and really didn't learn (or at least show) that he could do any real reading until halfway through kindy at 6.5yo.

I had one in chapter books in kindy and one in very simple readers. 2 kids, same environment, different personalities, different goals/drives, different results.

 

[hmacmahony]

and lets face it, reading at 4, also outside the norm, the majority of 4 year olds are not reading.
So, why should they be put in a kindergarten program, that kids are expected to be able to read??????

There is a difference between being outside the norm and being LD. There are children outside the norm. Of course there are, but how many others in her class were not reading in 3rd grade? Definitley not the majority of the class. It is not the norm in our society for a child not to read until 3rd grade.

 

[brymolmom]

and lets face it, reading at 4, also outside the norm, the majority of 4 year olds are not reading.
So, why should they be put in a kindergarten program, that kids are expected to be able to read??????

OK - something we can agree on!

Let's change the cutoffs....I'm all for that. Let's get every expert on the subject in one room to come up with the best date for that/age to begin. But then, let's enforce them too - so that all the kids in the classroom have an even playing field to start.

 

[princessmom29]

You must be in a tiny school or have a lot of extra teachers with tons of free time around.

At our home school ALONE they average at least 100 kids per grade. Our district has 22 elementary schools and all the elementary schools have about the same number of students.

Now we do have screenings that parents can do with their 3 and 4 and 5 years olds that is voluntary and scheduled through the districts child find program. It is an overall readiness and disability screening, but its up to the parents to choose to have it done and schedule it. Also, the results do not go to the school unless its a SPED referral

We are the largest school system in the state, and have schools of varying sizes, but every child gets an entrance screening. The regular classroom teachers administer them. All of the elem teachers will come in for orentation and help. The vast majority of kids are screened in that one day.

and lets face it, reading at 4, also outside the norm, the majority of 4 year olds are not reading.
So, why should they be put in a kindergarten program, that kids are expected to be able to read??????

I never said 4 year olds should be pushed into K. I think the standard should be waht can be expected from the overwhelming majority. The overwhelming majority of chilren are ready to enter a K program at 5 and to beign learning how to read.