Kingerdarten cut offs and stuff

231 posts / 0 new
Last post
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780
Kingerdarten cut offs and stuff

http://users.stargate.net/~cokids/kindergarten_cut-off_dates.htm

Here are a list of cut off dates by state.

A huge thing in my area is parents not adhering to the cut off dates in order to have their kid be the biggest, the best, or smarter than other kids on order to excel in primary school and beyond.

Do you think that these arbitrary dates ought to me made, or do you think that parents should have the option to hold their child back a year, regardless of cut off date because they can?

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

I;ll have to check my county, because I could have swore the cut off date was in September or October. Jace's bday is December 27, and I always suspected he would start next year and just be older then most of the kids (since he would be turning 6).

I'll come back and answer debate questions later:)

Okay, the list you posted is wrong for MD anyway, I guess everyone shold check their counties/districts websites to be for sure.

The county we live in:
"Age for Starting School

In a sequence which has been phased in over a series of years, a child must be five years of age on or before September 1st to begin kindergarten. A child must be four years of age on or before September 1st to be considered for prekindergarten. A child must be six years of age on or before September 1st to begin first grade.

The State Board's action to phase-in the changes of date of entry concluded a process that began December, 2001. The Board had received a report from the Maryland Kindergarten Committee - co-chaired by Harford Superintendent Jacqueline C. Haas - which recommended the change.

"The academic rigor of the kindergarten classroom has been building over time," State Superintendent of Schools Nancy S. Grasmick said. "It is our goal that students enter Maryland schools ready to learn, and this measure is an important step in that direction."

Local boards of education may adopt regulations permitting a four-year-old child (if the child will turn 5 on or before October 15th of the current school year), upon request by the parent or guardian, to be admitted to kindergarten if the local system determines that the child demonstrates the capabilities warranting early admission. In addition, the regulations maintain the option for parents to request a "Level of Maturity Waiver" for the local board to exempt from mandatory attendance for one year a kindergarten eligible child. Applications for both early entry and maturity waivers are available the first Friday in May each year, at every attendance area school."

That's what it said on my website.

Joined: 07/24/10
Posts: 208

"Potter75" wrote:

http://users.stargate.net/~cokids/kindergarten_cut-off_dates.htm

Here are a list of cut off dates by state.

A huge thing in my area is parents not adhering to the cut off dates in order to have their kid be the biggest, the best, or smarter than other kids on order to excel in primary school and beyond.

Do you think that these arbitrary dates ought to me made, or do you think that parents should have the option to hold their child back a year, regardless of cut off date because they can?

Haha! Sounds like those ladies who are due at the end of one month and purposely go to the next month's BB just so they can be first!

But anyways, in general, I think it's ok for parents to be able to decide when their children start school. The parents are the ones who know their child's level of emotional and academic maturity the best. I kind of don't understand the rush rush rush to start everything so early anyways. I like half day kindergarten. I like social skills, story time, and nap time in kindy. Poo on huge homework packets and standardized tests for 5 year olds!

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

California just changed the kindergarten cut off date from December 2nd to September 1st or 2nd, can't remember exactly which date. It's being phased in over the next three years, so kids born before November can start this year, those born before October can start next year, and the September cut-off begins in 2013. Tons of parents of kids born in October & November since 2006 are pissed because it means they lose the choice of enrolling their child "early" or holding them out another year. My son & my nephew were born five weeks apart, but they'll be in different grades because my nephew's birthday falls after September 2nd. This is particularly an issue in S.F. where siblings get priority in school assignments. I know at least three women who opted to induce in late August this year just to ensure that their babies will be able to start school when they are five, if they are ready of course, and get into a particular school because a sibling will still be attending.

I think school enrollment should be a calendar year, if you were born in 2006, you start school in 2011. Someone is always going to be the oldest or the youngest, more mature, less mature. Teachers deal with it, and if any particular child can't handle it, then they can be held back.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"The Great Vagina" wrote:

Haha! Sounds like those ladies who are due at the end of one month and purposely go to the next month's BB just so they can be first!

Yes very sameish. I call them "pregnancy winners". The most symptoms, the biggest belly, the first delivery, milestones, birthday etc. Um, yeah, because you are due like 5 or 6 weeks before everyone else. Winner!

This is like that, but the kids actually matter, as this affects how they relate to their "peers", who may or may not be the same age as them.

I see this in particular as it relates to boys. Society near me as decided to collectively agree that boys are stupid, it seems. Obvs it annoys the shiznit out of me.

If we have to have compulsory education, I would personally prefer that there is a rule about it, barring "issues" of any sort, of course. I don't think that it is fair that a parent can choose to keep their child, born in, say, May (like my boy), back, simply because it might be advantagious to that child in terms of athletics/brains/whatnot.

/This post has no relation to anyones facebook pictures. This is about me, and stuff that I hear in real life. I have feb, march, and may kids. I have already been 'told' to hold back my may boy. I resent the assumption that he is stupid and//or not up to age, but it is probably true, since kids in my area are all 6 going into kindergarten because they are the best awesomist evah.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

The only people that I know who have held their kids back a year are those who feel their child needs extra time to be on equal footing with the other kids. For example I have a friend who's son has documented learning disorders, so she held him back to give him an extra year to 'prep' for school.

Having said that, I have a November baby who I have already stated I will keep back a year if I feel it is necessary (our cut off is Dec). If you look at the statistics, children who are older when they start school typically do better because they are more mature and capable of learning in a classroom environment. This may even out over the first couple of years of school, but by then the 'pecking order' has already been established by the children and a child who was immature and further behind at the start of school will have a hard time changing his place in the class.

I dont want him to be 'bigger' or 'better' than the other kids, I just want to give him the best chance that I can, and if that is keeping him home an extra year, that is what I will do.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"Spacers" wrote:

California just changed the kindergarten cut off date from December 2nd to September 1st or 2nd, can't remember exactly which date. It's being phased in over the next three years, so kids born before November can start this year, those born before October can start next year, and the September cut-off begins in 2013. Tons of parents of kids born in October & November since 2006 are pissed because it means they lose the choice of enrolling their child "early" or holding them out another year. My son & my nephew were born five weeks apart, but they'll be in different grades because my nephew's birthday falls after September 2nd. This is particularly an issue in S.F. where siblings get priority in school assignments. I know at least three women who opted to induce in late August this year just to ensure that their babies will be able to start school when they are five, if they are ready of course, and get into a particular school because a sibling will still be attending.

I think school enrollment should be a calendar year, if you were born in 2006, you start school in 2011. Someone is always going to be the oldest or the youngest, more mature, less mature. Teachers deal with it, and if any particular child can't handle it, then they can be held back.

Wow, now that is planning ahead!

I honestly never would have thought about it, but DH read a book called Outliers that talked about how kids born in the winter tend to be more successful in school and sports, and its because they are typically the oldest kids in their class. He actually mentioned "holding T back" a year and starting K when he is 6 (his birthday is June, so well before the cut off date) but I think thats a bunch of bullhooey. I mean, I m sure the trend is real, but I m still not going to hold him back just so he can be a year older and bigger. If we get there and I think that he is not ready, that will be different. But I wouldnt hold him back just because. Nor would I start him early "just because" either.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"Spacers" wrote:

California just changed the kindergarten cut off date from December 2nd to September 1st or 2nd, can't remember exactly which date. It's being phased in over the next three years, so kids born before November can start this year, those born before October can start next year, and the September cut-off begins in 2013. Tons of parents of kids born in October & November since 2006 are pissed because it means they lose the choice of enrolling their child "early" or holding them out another year. My son & my nephew were born five weeks apart, but they'll be in different grades because my nephew's birthday falls after September 2nd. This is particularly an issue in S.F. where siblings get priority in school assignments. I know at least three women who opted to induce in late August this year just to ensure that their babies will be able to start school when they are five, if they are ready of course, and get into a particular school because a sibling will still be attending.

I think school enrollment should be a calendar year, if you were born in 2006, you start school in 2011. Someone is always going to be the oldest or the youngest, more mature, less mature. Teachers deal with it, and if any particular child can't handle it, then they can be held back.

They have a stupid 'no child left behind' policy here that means it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to get your child held back a year once they start school. They just continue to push them through the system whether they can complete the work or not:(

Joined: 10/22/06
Posts: 1033

Here I think the trend might be opposite to yours, Melis...people push their kids to start early (we have a 12/1 cut-off). I kind of think that is odd. Maybe I am biased because my own birthday is rather middle of the road (compared to our cut-off date), but I would have hated to be the youngest in my grade (last to drive!) or the smallest if a boy (gender stereotype, I know...but if they can have one more year to reach a more average size...). If you have your child in preschool here, part of the benefit is that you get an unbiased assessment of kindergarten readiness, as that year end eval is the norm. Ultimately though, I think it should be a combination of parents/teachers determining readiness ~ if you wish to ignore the cut-off (in either direction), there should be an evaluation done by the school. Maybe that's already what happens though?

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"Potter75" wrote:

Yes very sameish. I call them "pregnancy winners". The most symptoms, the biggest belly, the first delivery, milestones, birthday etc. Um, yeah, because you are due like 5 or 6 weeks before everyone else. Winner!

This is like that, but the kids actually matter, as this affects how they relate to their "peers", who may or may not be the same age as them.

I see this in particular as it relates to boys. Society near me as decided to collectively agree that boys are stupid, it seems. Obvs it annoys the shiznit out of me.

If we have to have compulsory education, I would personally prefer that there is a rule about it, barring "issues" of any sort, of course. I don't think that it is fair that a parent can choose to keep their child, born in, say, May (like my boy), back, simply because it might be advantagious to that child in terms of athletics/brains/whatnot.

/This post has no relation to anyones facebook pictures. This is about me, and stuff that I hear in real life. I have feb, march, and may kids. I have already been 'told' to hold back my may boy. I resent the assumption that he is stupid and//or not up to age, but it is probably true, since kids in my area are all 6 going into kindergarten because they are the best awesomist evah.

Why on earth shouldnt parents be able to do what they feel is best for their own child? If you dont think that it matters, then how does this even effect you? It doesnt change your childs age or when they start school, that is up to you.

Joined: 12/10/05
Posts: 1681

Here is goes by birth year. All the kids in kindy were born the same year, unless parent chose to hold back a December baby, which I think is fine.

I didn't realize how much school start dates varied regionally. I assumed it was the same everywhere.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"ftmom" wrote:

Why on earth shouldnt parents be able to do what they feel is best for their own child? If you dont think that it matters, then how does this even effect you? It doesnt change your childs age or when they start school, that is up to you.

Because I think it is lame. And if I assume that my child is of age, and if my rightly aged child is "behind" his not actual aged peers, it may make him feel "behind", when in fact, he is on track for his age.

Should a parent be able to "feel" their child into advanced edu? Or "feel" them into whatever grade they feel appropriate?

I think that less "feeling" is a good thing for kids.

SoxyToo's picture
Joined: 03/19/10
Posts: 44

This is a HUGE sore spot for me (I know my Sept. birthboard friends are soooooo sick of me beating this very dead horse) but I have an august and a september child and they are two full years apart chronologically but only one year apart in school. My august child has kids in the class who will turn 8 SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE this child's 7th bday, and they are in the same class. It's insane!!! I know parents hold when the kid's bday is august (I didn't) but this has been pushed to the extreme with parents holding for late spring and early summer bdays. These giant old teenagers are going to be almost TWENTY upon graduation. Ridiculous!!

I would have sent my sept. child but could not find a school that would accept a sept bday. Half of our birthboard babies were going to school turning 5 and about the other half had to wait til they were turning 6. I have yet to hear of ONE.SINGLE.REGRET with those who started turning 5 but you have people like with me with giant, bored kids who *should* be in the next grade.

Joined: 03/14/09
Posts: 624

My daughter was born 2 days before the cutoff here. It does worry me, to be honest. Especially since she speaks a minority langauge at home, I'd rather be able to keep her out of kindy for an extra year to develop her minority language. When my son (1 month before cutoff) entered kindy his majority language skills went through the roof. But there is no choice here, no failing or changing school years. It is what it is, and we will deal.

Joined: 01/01/06
Posts: 262

This is something I've thought a lot about. Our state is a strict Sept 1st. (Unless you pay for private kindergarten.)

My son's birthday is the end of July. Since we were in year round school at the time, he was still technically 4 when school started. He has done great even though many kids are a full year older than him.

DD#2 will turn 5 this August and start Kindergarten 1 week later. I'm not worried at all about her. She is socially/physically/mentally ready....

Which brings me to DD#3. Her due date was Sept 9. My sister's daughter was due 2 days before her. But my sister got to be induced the end of August. My baby came late. Her cousin will be able to go to Kindergarten and my daughter won't... Now, it might turn out to be a great thing. But if she's at all like DD#2 than it'll be hard for her to have to wait another whole year. So, yeah, I've thought a lot about it.

I think it's crazy that no one questions holding back a child for whatever reason....but you can't even get them tested and accepted early.

**Have to add, I have a neighbor that has held back all her boys JUST for the physical sports reason... (They had April-June birthdays.)

SoxyToo's picture
Joined: 03/19/10
Posts: 44

"Potter75" wrote:

Yes very sameish. I call them "pregnancy winners". The most symptoms, the biggest belly, the first delivery, milestones, birthday etc. Um, yeah, because you are due like 5 or 6 weeks before everyone else. Winner!

I see this in particular as it relates to boys. Society near me as decided to collectively agree that boys are stupid, it seems. Obvs it annoys the shiznit out of me.

I have already been 'told' to hold back my may boy. I resent the assumption that he is stupid and//or not up to age, but it is probably true, since kids in my area are all 6 going into kindergarten because they are the best awesomist evah.

Uggggggggg this makes me CRAZY!! I literally want to punch people in the face with this attitude. I have lost friends over this issue because I am an outspoken ***** about it. I think people who hold back boys born in May are assholes, plain and simple eta: barring any medical reason.

Also, people need to consider how their huge giant OLD child is going to look down the road, during puberty and when they are in high school. Yeah being the oldest in Kindy might not be that much of a difference but as the kids age and mature it does make a difference. Who wants to be almost 20 at graduation? How embarassing for the kids. Parents are doing a huge disservice to their kids by doing this for no medial/physical reason.

And I just wanted to add that kids know. They all know if they "should" be in the next grade. Every single one of our friends/family who have been held will say things like "I'm in 3rd grade but I SHOULD be in 4th my mother held me back." I cannot tell you how often I hear this. The kids do not like it IME.

ange84's picture
Joined: 12/28/09
Posts: 6564

"Spacers" wrote:

I think school enrollment should be a calendar year, if you were born in 2006, you start school in 2011. Someone is always going to be the oldest or the youngest, more mature, less mature. Teachers deal with it, and if any particular child can't handle it, then they can be held back.

It used to be like that here, but they changed it in the last couple of years to a June 30 cut off, which makes no sense with our school year which starts at the end of January and ends mid December. There are some parents who are keeping their children, boys especially, back a year. My DS with a September birthday will always be one of the oldest in his class now rather than in the past when he would be on the younger end. Is this an advantage or disadvantage, no idea, but he will deal and if it turns out like my hubby (hubby did school of the air for 2 years and thrived), he needs something other than the normal school environment we would look into school of the air to meet his needs until he could get it sorted.

SoxyToo's picture
Joined: 03/19/10
Posts: 44

I think it's one thing to say: "Hey my child was born on August 31 and the cutoff is Sept 1 let's give this some thought. He was born early, has shown signs of delay and his preschool teacher is recommending one more year before sending him off to K."

Completely different than saying: "My son was born in May and we are holding him back to give him an advantage academically and in sports. His teacher is telling me I should send him but I'm not listening as I know *better* than she does when my child is ready. If he was a girl I would send him but since boys need the extra year I'm not sending him. I want to make sure he is the best and brightest in his class."

One is a parent doing it in the child's best interest the other is just an ***.

b525's picture
Joined: 06/06/07
Posts: 298

Wow, I had no idea people did it on purpose to try to make their kids be better than others! Do you really think that's it?! My boys are November and January bdays, and I am happy about it, because my county has a cutoff of Sept. 1 (I believe). I don't think I would have held them back if their birthdays fell in August, but I'm glad they have a little more time to mature. It's not because I think they're stupid, by any means. My first is very impulsive and distractible, which will not serve him well in Kindergarten. Since I work full-time, the boys are in full-day daycare, with a preschool focus for the older kids. I'm glad he'll be in "preschool" for two years before Kindergarten, especially since we only have full-day Kindergarten in our county.

Holding your child back for a full extra year seems silly to me and I'm sure those parents haven't really thought about how it will feel for that child in high school. It never occurred to me to think about it. I'm glad it's a moot point for me...

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"Potter75" wrote:

Because I think it is lame. And if I assume that my child is of age, and if my rightly aged child is "behind" his not actual aged peers, it may make him feel "behind", when in fact, he is on track for his age.

Should a parent be able to "feel" their child into advanced edu? Or "feel" them into whatever grade they feel appropriate?

I think that less "feeling" is a good thing for kids.

But you're saying that it doesnt matter, so why does it matter if it is the other way around for you. As a parent I am perfectly capable of looking at my son and his same school year peers and judging if he is as mature and capable as them and if I feel he isnt, I will hold him back! There are going to be kids in his grade who are almost a full year older than him! when he graduates he will be less than 2 months older than the other kids. This doesnt make him a 'huge' teenager.

"SoxyToo" wrote:

Uggggggggg this makes me CRAZY!! I literally want to punch people in the face with this attitude. I have lost friends over this issue because I am an outspoken ***** about it. I think people who hold back boys born in May are assholes, plain and simple eta: barring any medical reason.

Also, people need to consider how their huge giant OLD child is going to look down the road, during puberty and when they are in high school. Yeah being the oldest in Kindy might not be that much of a difference but as the kids age and mature it does make a difference. Who wants to be almost 20 at graduation? How embarassing for the kids. Parents are doing a huge disservice to their kids by doing this for no medial/physical reason.

And I just wanted to add that kids know. They all know if they "should" be in the next grade. Every single one of our friends/family who have been held will say things like "I'm in 3rd grade but I SHOULD be in 4th my mother held me back." I cannot tell you how often I hear this. The kids do not like it IME.

I dont know about the kids being held back around you, but if I hold my sone back when he graduates he will be less than 2 months older than kids who started in the 'correct' year. This doesnt make him a 'huge' teenager. And honestly, I do alot of things that my kids dont like, that doesnt stop me from doing them if I think it is in my kids best interest. When I was going to school they would still hold kids back a grade if they needed it. By high school you couldnt even tell who those kids were, except that they could 'maybe' drive before the rest of us. I honestly dont see this as that huge a deal for the other kids.

b525's picture
Joined: 06/06/07
Posts: 298

"SoxyToo" wrote:

"I want to make sure he is the best and brightest in his class."

Holy toledo! Have you really heard people say that?! Obviously my friends all have littles. I just can't imagine!!!

SoxyToo's picture
Joined: 03/19/10
Posts: 44

"ftmom" wrote:

I dont know about the kids being held back around you, but if I hold my sone back when he graduates he will be less than 2 months older than kids who started in the 'correct' year. This doesnt make him a 'huge' teenager.

My daughter will turn 17 in August then begin her senior year, graduating at age 17. Her counterparts who were held for spring bdays will TURN 18 the spring of JUNIOR year, before my daughter even turns 17 so you're talking 15 months apart. That's a big difference and it does make a difference.

SoxyToo's picture
Joined: 03/19/10
Posts: 44

"b525" wrote:

Holy toledo! Have you really heard people say that?! Obviously my friends all have littles. I just can't imagine!!!

You would not believe what I've heard. I know I need to step away from this debate and simma down. I'm sure most parents have their child's best interest at heart but for some reason this debate gets me all fired up. Like I said before I don't understand doing it but at least can understand the rational is some instances. One thing I don't understand is that if a child needs an IEP or is learning disabled in one grade, that extra year really isn't going to change that. They are still going to need that IEP and will still carry that disablity with being held, they will just be a year older and might face being held back again down the road and now you've got an even older child.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"SoxyToo" wrote:

My daughter will turn 17 in August then begin her senior year, graduating at age 17. Her counterparts who were held for spring bdays will TURN 18 the spring of JUNIOR year, before my daughter even turns 17 so you're talking 15 months apart. That's a big difference and it does make a difference.

That may be a big difference when compared to your daughter, but in the range of the class these kids wouldnt stick out. If I am understanding you correctly (we dont call the years the same:p) the kids you are refering to who have been held back will only be 3 months older than the oldest kid who was 'supposed' to be in your daughters year. And since teenagers all develop at different rates, I dont think this is a huge difference.

SoxyToo's picture
Joined: 03/19/10
Posts: 44

"ftmom" wrote:

That may be a big difference when compared to your daughter, but in the range of the class these kids wouldnt stick out. If I am understanding you correctly (we dont call the years the same:p) the kids you are refering to who have been held back will only be 3 months older than the oldest kid who was 'supposed' to be in your daughters year. And since teenagers all develop at different rates, I dont think this is a huge difference.

You don't think a 19 year old boy and 17 year old girl will be at different social/physical places in their development? I do. I've seen it.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"SoxyToo" wrote:

You would not believe what I've heard. I know I need to step away from this debate and simma down. I'm sure most parents have their child's best interest at heart but for some reason this debate gets me all fired up. Like I said before I don't understand doing it but at least can understand the rational is some instances. One thing I don't understand is that if a child needs an IEP or is learning disabled in one grade, that extra year really isn't going to change that. They are still going to need that IEP and will still carry that disablity with being held, they will just be a year older and might face being held back again down the road and now you've got an even older child.

I have a friend who did this and her rational was that the extra year at the child development center (in a specialized preschool class, with aids, etc) he would at least start regular school at the same level as the other kids. The thought was, that if he started and was behind right from the beginning, he would just sit in the class and not do anything because he didnt even understand the instructions, but if he was at the same level as the other kids he would put forth alot more effort and if he did fall behind it would be a slower more gradual process that could hopefully be arrested before it got too low. There was also a funding issue where he lost his extra funding as soon as he entered the school system and would no longer get an aid etc.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"SoxyToo" wrote:

You don't think a 19 year old boy and 17 year old girl will be at different social/physical places in their development? I do. I've seen it.

Thats not what I said at all. What I am saying is that yes, a 17 year old and a 19 year old are at different places in alot of ways, but there are also teens in that same grade who are 'almost' 19 and I dont think that they are in a hugely different place than the 19 year old.

Can you not look at your own concerns and see that someone whos child is one of the youngest ( as I belive your daughter will be) might look at the difference within the same grade (even without these older kids) and want their child to be one of the olders and not the youngest in that scenario? What about the difference between a 17 year old boy and a 18 year old boy. Would you want your child to always be the small one in gym class, always be the one behind in changing voice or growing body hair?

These cut offs are so arbitrary, they have nothing to do with the rediness of the children for school, if they did, then there would be 2 or even 3 intakes with different cut off dates.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"Alissa_Sal" wrote:

Wow, now that is planning ahead!

I honestly never would have thought about it, but DH read a book called Outliers that talked about how kids born in the winter tend to be more successful in school and sports, and its because they are typically the oldest kids in their class. He actually mentioned "holding T back" a year and starting K when he is 6 (his birthday is June, so well before the cut off date) but I think thats a bunch of bullhooey. I mean, I m sure the trend is real, but I m still not going to hold him back just so he can be a year older and bigger. If we get there and I think that he is not ready, that will be different. But I wouldnt hold him back just because. Nor would I start him early "just because" either.

Great book! He noticed it with hockey players - how many of them had birthdays right after the cut off date. They were older, which meant bigger/stronger/faster, which was mistaken for natural talent. This led to more ice time and one-on-one coaching.

Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

"ftmom" wrote:

Thats not what I said at all. What I am saying is that yes, a 17 year old and a 19 year old are at different places in alot of ways, but there are also teens in that same grade who are 'almost' 19 and I dont think that they are in a hugely different place than the 19 year old.

Can you not look at your own concerns and see that someone whos child is one of the youngest ( as I belive your daughter will be) might look at the difference within the same grade (even without these older kids) and want their child to be one of the olders and not the youngest in that scenario? What about the difference between a 17 year old boy and a 18 year old boy. Would you want your child to always be the small one in gym class, always be the one behind in changing voice or growing body hair?

These cut offs are so arbitrary, they have nothing to do with the rediness of the children for school, if they did, then there would be 2 or even 3 intakes with different cut off dates.

I don't understand the bolded. What would you find less arbitrary? First grades filled with kids aged 3-12 grouped on educational ability?

Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

I think red shirting is weak, by the way. I don't get the idea that it's best for one's child to always be the biggest and oldest. I don't think parents should be able to keep their kids out except for private school or a documented disability, to be honest. The school system is designed to have kids spread throughout one calendar year, not 18+ months (I was a kid who started school in California at 4, despite a February birthday, so I was on the other end of this).

SoxyToo's picture
Joined: 03/19/10
Posts: 44

"ftmom" wrote:

Thats not what I said at all. What I am saying is that yes, a 17 year old and a 19 year old are at different places in alot of ways, but there are also teens in that same grade who are 'almost' 19 and I dont think that they are in a hugely different place than the 19 year old.

Can you not look at your own concerns and see that someone whos child is one of the youngest ( as I belive your daughter will be) might look at the difference within the same grade (even without these older kids) and want their child to be one of the olders and not the youngest in that scenario? What about the difference between a 17 year old boy and a 18 year old boy. Would you want your child to always be the small one in gym class, always be the one behind in changing voice or growing body hair?

These cut offs are so arbitrary, they have nothing to do with the rediness of the children for school, if they did, then there would be 2 or even 3 intakes with different cut off dates.

Yes I can however, I was denied a choice. I was not given the opporutnity to send my child to school because we missed the cutoff by a couple of weeks (late) but parents who just make the cutoff by the same number of days are given the choice. Then you have the parents who push it back to months and months it's gets annoying. You are right that the dates are arbitrary and I think there should be a date range and children should be evaluated for readiness if there is any concern by the parents and teachers - BOTH WAYS!! But this will never happen because that would never be in the budget. Well I shouldn't say never but I doubt it would happen even though it seems like common sense.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"ftmom" wrote:

But you're saying that it doesnt matter, so why does it matter if it is the other way around for you. As a parent I am perfectly capable of looking at my son and his same school year peers and judging if he is as mature and capable as them and if I feel he isnt, I will hold him back! There are going to be kids in his grade who are almost a full year older than him! when he graduates he will be less than 2 months older than the other kids. This doesnt make him a 'huge' teenager.

What do you mean I am saying that it doesn't matter?

Of COURSE it matters!

I'm super duper normal when it comes to my kids. Just because some assface credential lovin Mom wants her little superhero to get a scholarship, she should have to have some compliance around age and school cut offs. My opinion.

I'm betting that you chose to hold your child back?

SoxyToo's picture
Joined: 03/19/10
Posts: 44

"CalBearInBoston" wrote:

I think red shirting is weak, by the way. I don't get the idea that it's best for one's child to always be the biggest and oldest. I don't think parents should be able to keep their kids out except for private school or a documented disability, to be honest. The school system is designed to have kids spread throughout one calendar year, not 18+ months (I was a kid who started school in California at 4, despite a February birthday, so I was on the other end of this).

My cousin started at 4 too and ended up at Harvard Wink

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I want to make a "rediness" redshirt joke, but I'm too tired.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1686

"Spacers" wrote:

California just changed the kindergarten cut off date from December 2nd to September 1st or 2nd, can't remember exactly which date. It's being phased in over the next three years, so kids born before November can start this year, those born before October can start next year, and the September cut-off begins in 2013. Tons of parents of kids born in October & November since 2006 are pissed because it means they lose the choice of enrolling their child "early" or holding them out another year. My son & my nephew were born five weeks apart, but they'll be in different grades because my nephew's birthday falls after September 2nd. This is particularly an issue in S.F. where siblings get priority in school assignments. I know at least three women who opted to induce in late August this year just to ensure that their babies will be able to start school when they are five, if they are ready of course, and get into a particular school because a sibling will still be attending.

I think school enrollment should be a calendar year, if you were born in 2006, you start school in 2011. Someone is always going to be the oldest or the youngest, more mature, less mature. Teachers deal with it, and if any particular child can't handle it, then they can be held back.

Here's the thing with kindergarten in CA: It's not mandatory for parents to send their children to kindergarten, but districts have to offer it. Ed. spells out the age and if they take children younger, they can lose funding if other students who meet the age requirement enroll. Kindergarten is the only grade that has a cut-off date.

DD2's birthday is 12/9 - one week after the cut off. Her preschool had a pre-k room and a kindergarten. We decided to put her in the kindergarten and if it wasn't the right placement for her, we could move her down to pre-k. She did fine. She's now in 2nd grade and the youngest in her class (probably grade). She's already a bossy, busy-body who knows it all. I can't imagine her being in a 1st grade class. The only area she is behind her peers is in size. But, she is small for a 1st grader too, so we couldn't let that weigh in our decision.

DD1's birthday is 9/22. If the cut off date at the time had been 9/1, I would have done the same thing.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"CalBearInBoston" wrote:

I don't understand the bolded. What would you find less arbitrary? First grades filled with kids aged 3-12 grouped on educational ability?

I am actually not suggesting anything that is less arbitrary, simply pointing out that the cut off dates have nothing to do with the reality of any childs situation. There are schools that group children differently and Im not sure if I am a fan of that either. I dont really have a great suggestion of how to change this except maybe to say that if your child falls with a 3 months, either way, of the cut off you should have a choice of what year they start in, but Im sure there would be pitfalls with that as well.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

Great book! He noticed it with hockey players - how many of them had birthdays right after the cut off date. They were older, which meant bigger/stronger/faster, which was mistaken for natural talent. This led to more ice time and one-on-one coaching.

Dude. Canada and hockey. Fascinating stats on birthdate and success!

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"Potter75" wrote:

What do you mean I am saying that it doesn't matter?

Of COURSE it matters!

I'm super duper normal when it comes to my kids. Just because some assface credential lovin Mom wants her little superhero to get a scholarship, she should have to have some compliance around age and school cut offs. My opinion.

I'm betting that you chose to hold your child back?

Actually, neither of my children are school age yet. My daughter will be 4 in May and will be going to school on schedule. My son is only 1, but he has a November birthday and our cut off is December. I would certainly not state either way at this point, but I would be willing to hold him back if I thought he needed it, just as I will send him if I think he is ready. As a teacher where he would fall in the school year was one of the first things that I thought of, even before he was conceived (we had planned to start trying 2 months later;)) and his readiness for school is something that concerns me. It has nothing to do with scholarships or my son being a superhero and I am a offended that you would say so. It is about me giving my child the best opportunities I possibly can to learn and make friends and be a well rounded person!

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

If you are offended by my opinion it is because you are insecure about your choice.

End of story.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"Potter75" wrote:

If you are offended by my opinion it is because you are insecure about your choice.

End of story.

No. Its because you called me an 'assface credential lovin Mom' which is offensive.

I have actually made no choice, so what do I have to be insecure about?

You're the one who felt the need to resort to name calling. Good argument.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"ftmom" wrote:

No. Its because you called me an 'assface credential lovin Mom' which is offensive.

I have actually made no choice, so what do I have to be insecure about?

You're the one who felt the need to resort to name calling. Good argument.

Nope, wrong.

I called the moms who ARE assface credential loving Mom's that.

If you are one, that is on you. I didn't call YOU that, I don't have any idea who you are.

Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

"ftmom" wrote:

I am actually not suggesting anything that is less arbitrary, simply pointing out that the cut off dates have nothing to do with the reality of any childs situation. There are schools that group children differently and Im not sure if I am a fan of that either. I dont really have a great suggestion of how to change this except maybe to say that if your child falls with a 3 months, either way, of the cut off you should have a choice of what year they start in, but Im sure there would be pitfalls with that as well.

Why complain it's arbitrary if anything else would be arbitrary as well? Classes are grouped by age. Any cutoff is as arbitrary as any other cutoff. If we didn't have cutoffs, we would have 8 year old kindergarteners and a race to the bottom. Am I the only one who think that kids, unless there is a disability present, tend to surprise us by meeting expectations? Set high expectations, they tend to meet them. Set low expectations (you'll be on the younger end of your class and unable to achieve), and they'll meet those.

Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

"SoxyToo" wrote:

My cousin started at 4 too and ended up at Harvard Wink

Harvard is filled with people whose parents thought they were just the most special ever. Smile

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

"Potter75" wrote:

Do you think that these arbitrary dates ought to me made, or do you think that parents should have the option to hold their child back a year, regardless of cut off date because they can?

I bet, and I also hope, the dates are made for a reason by educational data to back it up. When I first thought of Jace starting Kindergarten next year (his bday is Dec 27), I was a little sad that he would be one of the oldest in his class. I don't even know why I felt sad, haha! He's in a pre-k program through his daycare, and they're awesome so I know he will def be ready for Kindergarten next year. My first grade teacher (yes, I'm friends with her on my FB, hehe) said, "He'll never have to "catch up" to level the playing field...he'll always be ahead." I have also heard from other people that they are really happy their kid was one of the oldest in the class, they really excelled, and were a bit more mature. Of course every kid is different.

So in the end, I really think there are dates for a reason, educational data to back it up (that I'm too lazy to google), and parents need to stop thinking they have a child prodigy or that they can make one. Also, if a kid can start at 5 years old because they make the cut off date, they should start them anyway... Even if they feel like they should start later. Let the teacher help little Timmy, along with yourself, and he may catch up and really excel. If not, he will be held back a year, which is not a big deal Smile

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"CalBearInBoston" wrote:

Am I the only one who think that kids, unless there is a disability present, tend to surprise us by meeting expectations? Set high expectations, they tend to meet them. Set low expectations (you'll be on the younger end of your class and unable to achieve), and they'll meet those.

No! You aren't!

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

I also want to say that I didn't know parents got so gung ho about this sort of thing. I mean, we all want our kids to be educated. Some parents act crazay!

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"Potter75" wrote:

Nope, wrong.

I called the moms who ARE assface credential loving Mom's that.

If you are one, that is on you. I didn't call YOU that, I don't have any idea who you are.

So you quoted me, stated that moms who hold their children back are 'assface credential loving Moms', then state that you 'bet I hold my child back', but you werent calling me names.

Ok, whatever, maybe you should check your posts for tone then before you post them.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"CalBearInBoston" wrote:

Why complain it's arbitrary if anything else would be arbitrary as well? Classes are grouped by age. Any cutoff is as arbitrary as any other cutoff. If we didn't have cutoffs, we would have 8 year old kindergarteners and a race to the bottom. Am I the only one who think that kids, unless there is a disability present, tend to surprise us by meeting expectations? Set high expectations, they tend to meet them. Set low expectations (you'll be on the younger end of your class and unable to achieve), and they'll meet those.

Yes maybe, but if a child is not capable of sitting still because they are not developmentally there yet, what good is forcing them going to do? The stats show younger kids dont do as well, Im sure there are exceptions to that, I just think things should be based more on where a child actually is, instead of forcing them into a place they are not ready for.

ftmom's picture
Joined: 09/04/06
Posts: 1538

"mommytoMR.FACE" wrote:

I bet, and I also hope, the dates are made for a reason by educational data to back it up. When I first thought of Jace starting Kindergarten next year (his bday is Dec 27), I was a little sad that he would be one of the oldest in his class. I don't even know why I felt sad, haha! He's in a pre-k program through his daycare, and they're awesome so I know he will def be ready for Kindergarten next year. My first grade teacher (yes, I'm friends with her on my FB, hehe) said, "He'll never have to "catch up" to level the playing field...he'll always be ahead." I have also heard from other people that they are really happy their kid was one of the oldest in the class, they really excelled, and were a bit more mature. Of course every kid is different.

So in the end, I really think there are dates for a reason, educational data to back it up (that I'm too lazy to google), and parents need to stop thinking they have a child prodigy or that they can make one. Also, if a kid can start at 5 years old because they make the cut off date, they should start them anyway... Even if they feel like they should start later. Let the teacher help little Timmy, along with yourself, and he may catch up and really excel. If not, he will be held back a year, which is not a big deal Smile

As I already stated, this is not an option where I am. So the choice does have to be made when they are perhaps too little to actually see their true potential.

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

"ftmom" wrote:

As I already stated, this is not an option where I am. So the choice does have to be made when they are perhaps too little to actually see their true potential.

I'm sorry, I kind of skimmed responses prior to posting. So what you're telling is if a kid fails everything during that school year, they will still pass him/her to the next grade? Or if their attendance falls less than a certain percentage, they will still pass him/her to the next grade?

Joined: 08/05/06
Posts: 441

"ftmom" wrote:

Yes maybe, but if a child is not capable of sitting still because they are not developmentally there yet, what good is forcing them going to do? The stats show younger kids dont do as well, Im sure there are exceptions to that, I just think things should be based more on where a child actually is, instead of forcing them into a place they are not ready for.

In my experience, there are very few 5 year olds without disabilities that are physically incapable of learning how to sit still. Most just haven't had the expectation or a school experience where they have had to learn to sit still. Do you think that most children are unable to learn how and the best option is instead to keep them out of formal school for an entire extra year? I find that really odd.

Pages