Send them to Kindergarden or Wait

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by mjmoon View Post
I'd be interested to talk to the children that are held back a year once they are older. Did they go through school feeling out of place because they were older? Did they feel perfectly fine all through school? Did they find they struggled more or less than their younger classmates?

According to my mom I was very ready, however I didn't make my schools arbitrary cut off (my b-day is Mid December) by less than a week (though I would have made the cut off if we lived one town over). At the time the school I went to didn't allow any exceptions, though a few years later younger 5's could test in.

Anyway I was one of the oldest all through school. In high school I had classmates that were 10 months younger me, and people in the higher class only 2 months older.

I felt fine through school, and bonus getting a driver's license as a sophomore. I didn't like still being in HS at 18 though, I was injured once and asked for an aspirin and they wouldn't give me one without speaking to my parents...I can vote and join the military but I can't have an aspirin? LOL

 

[WLfamily]

My son has a June birthday. We did not start him in kindergarten until he turned 6, instead we put him through another year of pre-school. Was he smart enough to attend at 5? Sure, but that wasn't my concern. I felt that emotionally he wasn't ready at 5. He is now in 7th grade and is a straight A student, in the Beta Club, and knows much more than I do. I don't regret our decision at all. Now had the situtation been reversed and it was my daughter, I so would have sent her at 5. But she has a Feb. birthday and it really didn't affect anything. My point...you and only you know your child best. In your heart and in your gut you know the right decision to make. Go with what you feel is best for him and do not look back and second guess yourself. God knows we do enough second guessing as parents. I will tell you from experience, this is just the beginning of hard choices you will make when it comes to his schooling. Don't stress too much over this one. Good Luck!!!

 

[ilandrazdsw]

Ugh! What a headache of a school system! I feel very bad for you and your child. In reality though I think from what you have posted is that your child was ready for school but the school failed him because it is inadequate. I hope you get back to the states as soon as possible.

As for the writing stuff, there is a program called handwriting without tears. It starts with learning to write shapes and lines etc. and them morphs into handwriting. It is a good program and it is fun. You might be able to find some of it online for free. It might help your son improve his motor skills without the stress of sentences.
There is also another program called Fundations. It makes handwriting easy. It is nothing like the way that we learned in that it isn't just write the letter over and over without really even knowing what you are doing. It is almost like a game for lack of a better way of describing it. It really does take the stress off the kids because it is very simple to understand and gives them a clear goal.

I hope this helps. It is heartbreaking to watch your child struggle.

Thank you for the suggestions, I will look into them. I am keeping him home this afternoon because they are having an assembly for honor roll awards. He did not get on the Honor roll because of the Exams, not becasue of his knowledge so rather than him sitting for nearly 2 hours (yes, the whole school) we will work on his handwriting in play. His teacher was completely supportive of this. OK, maybe I should make him go to encourage his freinds on the good work they did, but this is the priority.

Yes, If we were in the US he would have gone to K, but the school would have alos appropriately (yes, I know the school) helped him rather than leaving us on our own.

 

["Cinder" Ella's Mom]

I haven't read all of the posts, but one thing to consider is local sports/activities. Our Park District teams form by age, not year in school. The kids who are delayed for Kindergarten are then placed on teams with all kids from the year ahead of them in school (the same age as they are). These kids never get to play sports with their own peers and the kids all ask why they are playing with the older kids, etc. Just something to think about....

 

[dogluva]

I agree. Also, in my experience I've heard a lot of parents that didn't want their child to be the smallest in class. Genetics come into play. And some kids sprout very quickly in a years time. The point is some things are out of our control. On the flip side, I have seen kids that are a year older in K (were held back) that are very large and use this against their classmates. The possibilities run the spectrum.

IMO it is counterproductive to put a child that is "immature" in with a younger group of kids. Children mature in a number of ways. Modeling behaviors from a peer group is one way maturity develops. (*Qualifier* It does depend on the degree of immaturity.)

This is so true. That is why integrated classroom are great. Peer role models are the best! My son is the type to rise to the occassion. He learned to ride a bike this way, swim, and other things that he couldn't do 100 percent. Peers are the best teachers (not always a good thing, especially if the kids are WAY older).

 

[ilandrazdsw]

We all agree or disagree with certain aspects of this thread...some rather passionately. I think that it is not that parents that keep children home OR the ones that believe a child should be enrolled in school to give it a chance that are at "fault" for the age issue, but the education system itself. There is SO much inconsistency throughout the US (and even here)! Some cut-off dates are Sept 1 others are Dec 31...WHAT? This means that a 4 yo could be enrolled because he WILL be 5 during that school year or that the student could wait to be enrolled until the next year becasue he will still be 5 during that next year. Maybe I am not understand this correctly, but shouldn't the schools be on the same page with age and what is expected from the students in what grades? It seems like some states K is an option and in some it is not. Moving from one state/area the child may be the youngest in the class enrolled at the "appropriate" age deemed by the original school district, but in the new district my be the oldest due to their cut-off dates.
Some schools see K as a play to learn environment for students to catch what they can while others treat it as a sit-in-desks type of class. Some areas offer PreKs or HeadStarts through government for everyone while others have a lottery system and yet other have to see it is provided privately...other parents prefer to have no early childhood education taught by an outside source. How is this fair to ANY of the parents? Does that mean because we live in one area our child could be smarter because of state paid earlychildhood ed?
Maybe, JUST MAYBE if the government could get education under one umbrella some of these Issues would be taken out of play. (I know I'm dreaming!) They blame the schools, teachers, parents, and even kids themselves for doing poorly on tests. In some areas it may be justified, but when it becomes the norm for teachers to "teach the test" for state exams something is wrong...and it is not because a child was held back a year from starting K. Each state has their own test and I do not believe all the benchmarks for students in every grade (state to state) match up. So what does that mean for the child that moves from a different state that had higher/lower curriculm...may be in the right grade age wise, but could be bored or too challenged.
If government could develop standards and age "requirements" that were one and all AND OFFERED early childhood ed to all (giving each student the same opportunity or a better chance of catching disabilites) parents may know what is expected of their children when.
Now I will be the first to say that I HATE the school system, their demands, and that "THEY" dictate the year and how my family can/is supposed to vacation. Many will then say choose to home school...this is not an option , so I tolerate the education system. I also think that standardized state test have too much weight when other forms of evaluation can be done to monitor progress...especially for student who are just poor test takers, but know the material. But if parents had a nationwide guide and education was no longer seen as 'sit in the desk with the teacher teaching' and more of active participation by teachers, students, and parents (many teacher training programs are not teaching this theory to future teachers) I would hope thing would change education as a whole for the positive.
All it takes is time and $$. Time for parents to tell those in govn't something needs to be done and offer suggestions AND for those who are making the decisions to really see what is going on in the schools over and above just statistics and spot checks...talk to the parents AND student of every age they are the ones there! Money that Govn't doesn't have...and I won't start on where it has gone to.
OK, getting off my soapbox now.

 

[Nicoleclaw]

We sent dd who was 5 aug 23. She is doing great. I think the cutoff by us is Oct 30? I turned 5 the first day of Kindergarten. I did well in school, started college at 17 (with a Sept bday), and graduated at 21 with a gpa of 3.8. I started teaching the day I turned 22. Good luck with your decision!

 

[michael's mom]

We all agree or disagree with certain aspects of this thread...some rather passionately. I think that it is not that parents that keep children home OR the ones that believe a child should be enrolled in school to give it a chance that are at "fault" for the age issue, but the education system itself. There is SO much inconsistency throughout the US (and even here)! Some cut-off dates are Sept 1 others are Dec 31...WHAT? This means that a 4 yo could be enrolled because he WILL be 5 during that school year or that the student could wait to be enrolled until the next year becasue he will still be 5 during that next year. Maybe I am not understand this correctly, but shouldn't the schools be on the same page with age and what is expected from the students in what grades? It seems like some states K is an option and in some it is not. Moving from one state/area the child may be the youngest in the class enrolled at the "appropriate" age deemed by the original school district, but in the new district my be the oldest due to their cut-off dates.
Some schools see K as a play to learn environment for students to catch what they can while others treat it as a sit-in-desks type of class. Some areas offer PreKs or HeadStarts through government for everyone while others have a lottery system and yet other have to see it is provided privately...other parents prefer to have no early childhood education taught by an outside source. How is this fair to ANY of the parents? Does that mean because we live in one area our child could be smarter because of state paid earlychildhood ed?
Maybe, JUST MAYBE if the government could get education under one umbrella some of these Issues would be taken out of play. (I know I'm dreaming!) They blame the schools, teachers, parents, and even kids themselves for doing poorly on tests. In some areas it may be justified, but when it becomes the norm for teachers to "teach the test" for state exams something is wrong...and it is not because a child was held back a year from starting K. Each state has their own test and I do not believe all the benchmarks for students in every grade (state to state) match up. So what does that mean for the child that moves from a different state that had higher/lower curriculm...may be in the right grade age wise, but could be bored or too challenged.
If government could develop standards and age "requirements" that were one and all AND OFFERED early childhood ed to all (giving each student the same opportunity or a better chance of catching disabilites) parents may know what is expected of their children when.
Now I will be the first to say that I HATE the school system, their demands, and that "THEY" dictate the year and how my family can/is supposed to vacation. Many will then say choose to home school...this is not an option , so I tolerate the education system. I also think that standardized state test have too much weight when other forms of evaluation can be done to monitor progress...especially for student who are just poor test takers, but know the material. But if parents had a nationwide guide and education was no longer seen as 'sit in the desk with the teacher teaching' and more of active participation by teachers, students, and parents (many teacher training programs are not teaching this theory to future teachers) I would hope thing would change education as a whole for the positive.
All it takes is time and $$. Time for parents to tell those in govn't something needs to be done and offer suggestions AND for those who are making the decisions to really see what is going on in the schools over and above just statistics and spot checks...talk to the parents AND student of every age they are the ones there! Money that Govn't doesn't have...and I won't start on where it has gone to.
OK, getting off my soapbox now.

Okay, I will start by saying that I am a first grade teacher.

I think it is important to know that having a consistent cut-off date throughout the country is really not necessary. It doesn't matter if my child and your child start school at the same time because regardless, they will still be in school for 13 years k-12. I am not sure about other states, but kindergarten is not a requirement here in MA however I don't know a public school that doesn't offer it. I know that it is the law that children must be in school when they are 6 (again, I can't say if this is a MA law or national) which may be why the cut-off's are when they are. I have experienced parents choosing not to send their child to kindergarten but enrolling them in first grade the following year.

The cut-off date is simply that...a cut-off. It doesn't matter if one school is Sept. 1, Dec.15, or Dec. 31. What is important is that all students in that district are in the same boat. Very few families relocate to other states (in the grand scheme of things) and it is not, nor should be, the concern of districts to adjust for the possibility of one child moving in from another state. Most systems in our district have a cut-off date within a few months of each other. This really isn't going to make a huge difference for a child moving from one town to another. A cut-off date is needed so that school systems can predict the number of students enrolling, therefore the number of staff needed and materials needed. Without cut-off dates we would have parents enrolling just 4 year olds and just 6 year olds in the same class and that is developmentally unsound for children. They are different. Think of it like asking a 1 year old, 2 year old, and a 3 year old to play the same with wooden blocks. One will chew them, one will throw them, and the other will build with them.

I think you may be touching on different issues when you write about national standards...which is already a discussion at the national government level. The problem with national standards would probably halt at the history level. Who decides which history to teach the children. Most would agree that it is just as important for students to learn their local history as it is national history. So, I guess there could be national standards in some areas but not all. Like you said, it does come down to money. It is a well known fact that some districts spend more than others on education...national standards means national funding which would mean that the high paying districts would begin to spend less because the funding would be based on a national average most likely. I can guarantee you that parents in those communities would put up a fight. Included in this national funding would have to mean a national teacher's contract and payscale...which would mean more money for many teachers in districts that don't pay very well (mine included)...but again, those teachers in high-paying districts would incur paycuts which would mean that you would have a whole lot of people fighting this type of legislature.


Bottom line, this thread was about one woman asking whether or not she should send her son to kindergarten when he is 5 or 6...she does know best for her son. There's no blame here. Each child is different and I think we could all agree that parents as a whole know what's best for their children and they should have the right to make decisions for their child regarding education.

 

[Leajess99]

Leajess99: The Bahamia system has to look up to see the bottom of the bottom. College is not a priority for too many Bahamians...which may be a good thing because under the ministry of education there is little chance of gaining enterance. In the capital, Nassau, there are several private schools that give the kids a chance...some even with an actual K. I think one of the biggest problems is that it is a country of islands. Some islands only have a one room school house that stops at 6th grade...parents then have to send their children to stay with family in Nassau or an island with a 1-12 school. Money is also very limited for education and getting it to the family island schools, out of the Ministry's hands, is very difficult because Superintendents and Principals can not be in their face to get it as they should be on their islands teaching.
On our island there is a private Nursery school. I found out too late how inferiour (sp) the program was...and I do have guilt over that, but did not send DD for a waste of $. There is also a "private school." They use a home school program and none of the "teacher" are qualified...I think all of the teachers have finished HS or a HS program. Other families Home school their children...this is not for us. Our k-12 school is underfunded even compared to the other schools in our district. I could explain the reasons but I don't want to offend anyone or begin a fued as the primary reason is race. The community supports the school as much as possible, parents buy all the school books, and do repairs around the campus. The principal is condescending even to the teachers and he is not forceful enought to tell the Superintendent a portion of the money is to go to SWAA and he wants it for much needed repair and supplies.
The other big issues in not only our school is the Haitian population. Before I continue I am in no way trying to show disrespect or stereotype the Haitian people or culture. Haitians have immigrated into the Bahamas in the recent years...many illegally. Their children, however, were born here thus Bahamian (which is actually still in debate in government). The families are poor and cannot afford nursery school or even books for school. Many of the parents do not speak English and the children come to school with limited if an English, reading, or writing skills. Often it is the students' older siblings that communicate with the teacher. Do I believe that these children have the right to be in school...absolutely! Do I think that they should be more prepared for entering grade 1...you betcha! Do I think that the Ministry of Education/Bahamian Government is failing ALL their students/citizens...WITHOUT A DOUBT!
I do not know the reasoning for making 5 yos who have no or poor early childhood educations come into school expected to write properly and neatly on notebok paper, be reading independently, and able to do addition & subtraction. Should all of this be taught by the teacher...yes! However, the teacher has to stick to a mandatory schedule and accomplish so much. The kids are being pushed. Originally I thought my "issues" with the education had to do with my American schooling, but after talking with DH and other parents of students in the class I now realize that I am not the only one who thinks they are being pushed. All the parents from here say i didn't do this stuff until 2 and 3 grade.
Letters have been sent year after year, quarter after quarter for help for our school and NOTHING...yet they still expect great results. Due to parents agreeing to push their students and students wanting to do better and find a way to get off the island SWAA does get wonderful testing scores. So this only sends the message to govn't that we don't need their support and what is expected is just fine.
The drop out rate used to be very high, especially for our island. Boys would go fishing (for a living) and the girls would clean homes. Peolpe were married at rather early ages..even 5,10 years ago. At 31 I am one of the older parents with a first child in 1st. I don't know if this is why govn't is pushing...to get more ed into the kids before the possibility of dropping out.
Probably more than anyone ever wanted to know!

Wow!! Thank you for educating me some on the school system there. Unfortunately I see they are not immune to the same issues we have here with illegals and communication.

 

[Leajess99]

I agree. Also, in my experience I've heard a lot of parents that didn't want their child to be the smallest in class. Genetics come into play. And some kids sprout very quickly in a years time. The point is some things are out of our control. On the flip side, I have seen kids that are a year older in K (were held back) that are very large and use this against their classmates. The possibilities run the spectrum.

IMO it is counterproductive to put a child that is "immature" in with a younger group of kids. Children mature in a number of ways. Modeling behaviors from a peer group is one way maturity develops. (*Qualifier* It does depend on the degree of immaturity.)

My son had a teammate on his soccer team that at age 9 was the size of a small Kindergartener. Had his parents held him back based on size he may still not be in school even though he is now 16. It was determined too late for the treatment that he had a growth condition so he will always be small. They did catch it in time for his little sister. The parents felt horrible but this child played with heart and was sometimes underestimated on the soccer field.

 

[ilandrazdsw]

Bottom line, this thread was about one woman asking whether or not she should send her son to kindergarten when he is 5 or 6...she does know best for her son. There's no blame here. Each child is different and I think we could all agree that parents as a whole know what's best for their children and they should have the right to make decisions for their child regarding education.

This is why I made the statement about there being a national cut-off date. Posters are NOT agreeing that parents should have the right to choose what is best for their children. Some parents are saying I want my child home for another year while others say you may want that, but then it isn't fair for their child.
The idea of a national cut off would then at least hopefully put kids within closer age range all around. I do understand that schools need to know how to plan for the coming year. The same with making K mandatory since it is not in every state. Parents would then know if they HAD to send their child at a specific age (not that I necessarily agree) so their would not be an option to keep them home or at what age to send them...if they were slower, less mature, lacked skills then the schools would have to deal with it...yes, which would bring up even more issues.
My comments about national testing were in response to the idea of government taking control of education. I believe that core subjects could be nationalized. Teachers are being nationally certified.
It does all come down to money. This has been one of the biggest issues in education. Brown v BoE opened schools, yet the education was not necessairly due to communities of low income and poverty. I just wonder why it is that government sees the drastic difference in funding between districts/states as tolerable? Granted you can't get blood out of a turnip, but it seems that education is not a priority. Yes, schools are told what to teach and sometimes even how to teach it, but that becomes very difficult when there are limited supplies and little to no money no matter how creative teacher are. Parents & teachers of wealthy school districts will scream if funding is cut. Parents & teachers of less affluent districts will jump for joy. Is there an answer besides telling everyone deal with it...I doubt it. Teachers could have salaries related to years experience and criteria evaluated by principals/district board members (not that they are necessarily qualified educators). Current teachers would be grandfathered in. Just a thought.
The original poster questioned at what age she should send her son to school. This is a personal decision unless mandated by law...then there is no question. Other posters became passionate about sending younger or older children because they thought they knew what was best for thier child OR were concerned for their age "appropriate" student. IMHO if rules were clear stating at x age the child HAD to be enrolled in grade x this wouldn't even be a thread. There are SO many more thing to be concerned about in education (IMO & ONLY my oppinion) that if a child comes to K at 5 or 6 is low concern on the totem pole in the spectrum.
I am also a teacher and can see both sides of debate professionally and as a mother.
Also your example of the 1, 2, & 3 year olds with the blocks did explain your point very well; however, you can still have differences with 5, 5, & 5 yos; 10, 10, & 10 yos; or 18, 18, & 18 yos within the same class with the same teacher so nothing is certain. Parents have to do what is best for their child and take the responsibility to teach him/her how to (and I may not put this elequently-sp) work from within, take pride in himself, have and show the respect and patience for others as he expects from others, and see educations/sports/any task as an opportunity to learn (from the good and the bad), socialize (with all), and use his talents...from birth. Learning is a lifelong process!

 

[QueueCT]

I actually believe there needs to be flexibility (no, really!) but it's the slide into the commonplace that bothers me. If 2% (random number, but small) of the children are held back for valid reasons then I don't have any issue. When it increases to 20% or more then it clearly moves into the realm of absurdity. If you think I'm being ridiculous, take a look at the referenced article. It's a bit out of date but I think it's still relevant.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E6DB103DF93BA1575AC0A9659C8B63

 

[mjkacmom]

[QUOTE="Cinder" Ella's Mom;29946719]I haven't read all of the posts, but one thing to consider is local sports/activities. Our Park District teams form by age, not year in school. The kids who are delayed for Kindergarten are then placed on teams with all kids from the year ahead of them in school (the same age as they are). These kids never get to play sports with their own peers and the kids all ask why they are playing with the older kids, etc. Just something to think about....[/QUOTE]


This works both ways - one of ds's friends has an August birthday, and soccer cut-offs are in June, so he couldn't play with his friends, because he was too young, even though he was in the same grade. He was good, so after the first year, he was able to play up (and my DH is the coach, and made sure he got on his team).

 

[ilandrazdsw]

I actually believe there needs to be flexibility (no, really!) but it's the slide into the commonplace that bothers me. If 2% (random number, but small) of the children are held back for valid reasons then I don't have any issue. When it increases to 20% or more then it clearly moves into the realm of absurdity. If you think I'm being ridiculous, take a look at the referenced article. It's a bit out of date but I think it's still relevant.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E6DB103DF93BA1575AC0A9659C8B63

Thank you for posting. The article was interesting. I also took notice where it stated that students were allowed to enter school as last as 7 years old...when the school allows this then don't (schools) complain when they are having older students in class. The article also shows that it is regional and seems to be a trend that could be broken with younger, yet age appropriate according to the curriculum mandates.

As far as parents expecting schools to prepare their students for college in K, 1, 2...they need a reality check. Preparing, yes. But there are 12 or 13 years to get all that done. If they are not Ivy League ready there are other very qualified and respected institutes of education to prepare them for career or even to prepare them for other Colleges/Universities. There are also Prep schools. Some children, no matter the amount or challenge of the work, will never be admitted to the Ivy League or any college...and that's just fine! Holding students back for maturity, delays, or even for more kid time that's one thing, but so their kids can play ball as a freshman in college? But as the law mandates (referred to in this article) it is the parents' legal decision up to age 7.

The other thing that caught my eye was the communities in which students with "red shirted." In less affluent communities the children were more likely to enter school at the general age, while in more affluent communities the instances of "red shirting" were higher. The article cited parents wanting the college edge. Wouldn't you think parents in the less affluent communities would also want to give their child that edge...if not more if competing for scholarships? Does this come down to money? The less affluent parents probably do not have the funds for another year of child care and/or do not have a parent available to stay home full time, where more affluent MAY have the funds for child care or a parent home full time. Sorry I am stereo typing, there is a reason there are stereo types (about so many things).

 

[OceanAnnie]

Thank you for posting. The article was interesting. I also took notice where it stated that students were allowed to enter school as last as 7 years old...when the school allows this then don't (schools) complain when they are having older students in class. The article also shows that it is regional and seems to be a trend that could be broken with younger, yet age appropriate according to the curriculum mandates.

As far as parents expecting schools to prepare their students for college in K, 1, 2...they need a reality check. Preparing, yes. But there are 12 or 13 years to get all that done. If they are not Ivy League ready there are other very qualified and respected institutes of education to prepare them for career or even to prepare them for other Colleges/Universities. There are also Prep schools. Some children, no matter the amount or challenge of the work, will never be admitted to the Ivy League or any college...and that's just fine! Holding students back for maturity, delays, or even for more kid time that's one thing, but so their kids can play ball as a freshman in college? But as the law mandates (referred to in this article) it is the parents' legal decision up to age 7.

The other thing that caught my eye was the communities in which students with "red shirted." In less affluent communities the children were more likely to enter school at the general age, while in more affluent communities the instances of "red shirting" were higher. The article cited parents wanting the college edge. Wouldn't you think parents in the less affluent communities would also want to give their child that edge...if not more if competing for scholarships? Does this come down to money? The less affluent parents probably do not have the funds for another year of child care and/or do not have a parent available to stay home full time, where more affluent MAY have the funds for child care or a parent home full time. Sorry I am stereo typing, there is a reason there are stereo types (about so many things).

Lack of money doesn't have anything to do with Head Start parents not holding back their children. Not a thing. The parents would not equate holding their children back with giving them "an edge". The very idea of holding their child back would have been viewed as a failure. Totally different perspectives from totally different economic groups. In other words, you can't overlay this trend onto this group. The spiraling trend doesn't have the same meaning to this group. This chasm is very interesting to me.

In my experience, working with Head Start the parents were looking for equal footing. They wanted their children to do their personal best. What I observed was a quiet pride. The parents had a different focus. They were concerned with progress. They weren't concerned with such things as size, sports, or maturity. There were never comparisons made about other children. Their focus was on their own.

 

[ilandrazdsw]

Lack of money doesn't have anything to do with Head Start parents not holding back their children. Not a thing. The parents would not equate holding their children back with giving them "an edge". The very idea of holding their child back would have been viewed as a failure. Totally different perspectives from totally different economic groups. In other words, you can't overlay this trend onto this group. The spiraling trend doesn't have the same meaning to this group. This chasm is very interesting to me.

In my experience, working with Head Start the parents were looking for equal footing. They wanted their children to do their personal best. What I observed was a quiet pride. The parents had a different focus. They were concerned with progress. They weren't concerned with such things as size, sports, or maturity. There were never comparisons made about other children. Their focus was on their own.

Thank you for the correction, this is not what I have experienced....different regions, different experiences.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Thank you for the correction, this is not what I have experienced....different regions, different experiences.

You're welcome. It is quite interesting.

 

[disney fan 1994]

Very Well Said!!!!

 

[disney fan 1994]

Thank you very well said!!!!!!!

Okay, I will start by saying that I am a first grade teacher.

I think it is important to know that having a consistent cut-off date throughout the country is really not necessary. It doesn't matter if my child and your child start school at the same time because regardless, they will still be in school for 13 years k-12. I am not sure about other states, but kindergarten is not a requirement here in MA however I don't know a public school that doesn't offer it. I know that it is the law that children must be in school when they are 6 (again, I can't say if this is a MA law or national) which may be why the cut-off's are when they are. I have experienced parents choosing not to send their child to kindergarten but enrolling them in first grade the following year.

The cut-off date is simply that...a cut-off. It doesn't matter if one school is Sept. 1, Dec.15, or Dec. 31. What is important is that all students in that district are in the same boat. Very few families relocate to other states (in the grand scheme of things) and it is not, nor should be, the concern of districts to adjust for the possibility of one child moving in from another state. Most systems in our district have a cut-off date within a few months of each other. This really isn't going to make a huge difference for a child moving from one town to another. A cut-off date is needed so that school systems can predict the number of students enrolling, therefore the number of staff needed and materials needed. Without cut-off dates we would have parents enrolling just 4 year olds and just 6 year olds in the same class and that is developmentally unsound for children. They are different. Think of it like asking a 1 year old, 2 year old, and a 3 year old to play the same with wooden blocks. One will chew them, one will throw them, and the other will build with them.

I think you may be touching on different issues when you write about national standards...which is already a discussion at the national government level. The problem with national standards would probably halt at the history level. Who decides which history to teach the children. Most would agree that it is just as important for students to learn their local history as it is national history. So, I guess there could be national standards in some areas but not all. Like you said, it does come down to money. It is a well known fact that some districts spend more than others on education...national standards means national funding which would mean that the high paying districts would begin to spend less because the funding would be based on a national average most likely. I can guarantee you that parents in those communities would put up a fight. Included in this national funding would have to mean a national teacher's contract and payscale...which would mean more money for many teachers in districts that don't pay very well (mine included)...but again, those teachers in high-paying districts would incur paycuts which would mean that you would have a whole lot of people fighting this type of legislature.


Bottom line, this thread was about one woman asking whether or not she should send her son to kindergarten when he is 5 or 6...she does know best for her son. There's no blame here. Each child is different and I think we could all agree that parents as a whole know what's best for their children and they should have the right to make decisions for their child regarding education.

 

[C&G'sMama]

This is where I have a problem. April? Why don't we just send them to school when the parents feel they are ready, that may be six, 9, who knows. If my November or December baby (the cut off is Dec. 31) is ready, then your child is basically 19 or 20 months older. That is too much of an age gap.

It catches up. The 15 year old is a heck of a lot more mature than the 13 and a half year old. I witnessed it with my son in middle school. He was around these kids who were WAY more mature than him. I didn't like it. Sorry, he is my child and I have a say in what he is exposed to as well.

Kids don't stay babies. They grow into middle schoolers, high schoolers. Protect them all you want but think of how it will be in a few years.

I never said I was trying to protect him by keeping him home. He went to play school at the age of 2, an accredited pre-school at the age of 3 and our district's pre-K program at the age of 4. Now he is in kindergarten. But, we had discussions with his pediatricians, his teachers at his old school and his current school and other professionals about whether it would be appropriate for him to go on to Kindergarten. He has Asperger's syndrome. No, that doesn't mean he needs "special" education but while he has an IQ of 156 he has the social maturity of a 4 year old. You don't know my family or the situation we are in.

In New York State a child has to be enrolled in some kind of school (or homeschooled) when they are in their 6th year. There is no mandatory Kindergarten in NYS.

As far as his excelling in sports and beating out a 13 year old, not to worry, although he has lots of heart, he has no athletic ability. But he'll kick butt on the chess team.