Holding Back Not Allowed?

[elektra]

I actually think this is part of the reasoning for attempting to restrict ages. Rather than have such a huge age range, in theory, having a smaller age range would lean towards having a smaller range of abilities.

I was really surprised because I hadn't heard any forewarning on this policy and I know many people who have waited a year to start their kids.

Yes, my comment doesn't make a lot of sense if not everyone is redshirting, as they seem to be to me (but probably aren't 100%).

But in theory, the classes could still very well have the same range of abilities, but instead of the current situation of having the homework and academic focus that is thought to have been brought on by the redshirting, it would shift back towards the more play based?
I just don't really see that happening- all of a sudden things being more accommodating to younger more "immature" kids who would be forced to go to K even if their parents didn't think they were ready.

[blisstwins]

They do this in NY so people send their kids to private (Catholic or independent) kindy and then send to public. They can make you skip K but not 1st grade.

[AnnieW625]

They can do this because kindergarten is not required in California. IMHO if I were that parent I don't think I would have much of an issue sending my child to 1st grade if that is what my district's rule was because:
1. if she doesn't do well they can always move her to kindergarten
2. I am sure that the pre k program she was in (even if it is playbased) is probably pretty comparable to public school kindergarten. (I hate to say it but if the kid was held back it was by parents who thought redshirting was an option and therefore probably sent her to an extra year of private pre k. If the kid went to a Head Start or other non private program funded with state, federal, or local money then the child in most cases would not have been held back).
3. I would be on the phone to the schools principal ASAP to get everything clarified, but if it is a high performing and hard to get into school then I would want her to get and at least have a spot and deal with whether

I have heard of this. Some places if you send them to private for K, then the NEXT year they will place them in public first.

I will undoubtedly be flamed for this, but I strongly disagree with this kind of policy and think that it is inappropriate for schools to take this decision away from parents.

Catherine

I am support of such a rule, but with some leeway. If a kid's birthday is within 60 days of the cutoff, I am OK with parents choosing to redshirt. But I think there should be some sort of (documented) extenuating circumstances beyond that. I don't think parents should get to choose to send a kid to K on any timetable they deem acceptable. 6.5 and 7 year olds do not belong in K (again, barring other circumstances).

I agree with both of these statements.

I think that a child's education choices should have lots of input and in the end should be a decision made by the parent, but I do support limits for completely neurotypical children. For children with non neurotypical issues, education related special needs, or behavior issues that can't be pinpointed to one thing or another I think that the parent, the school's administrator, and the school or district psychologist all need to be present and make the decision as to what the child's placement will be.

I guess I just have to say that I am pretty happy that I have kids with spring birthdays so I wouldn't have to worry about sending or not sending them to school on time.

[elektra]

I agree. My August 06 DS is old enough for K next year. Academically he is ready for K. I don't believe in holding back to give a child an academic advantage.

The thing is, he's not ready. He still takes 2-3 hour naps daily. He is immature for his age. I don't think he's ready. DH (teacher) doesn't think he's ready. His preschool teacher doesn't think he's ready. DS1 is in K right now and knows DS2 well, she doesn't think he is ready.

He would be a huge disruption in the classroom. He lacks impulse control. When he's tired (as in, at the end of a full day of school), it's worse.

I would be devastated if I was required to send him to K next year. It would make for a horrific start for his public school education.

so you wouldn't hold your child back if they were academically behind, like couldn't make a single letter, even if they were socially on track? But you would hold back for social reasons?

Sincerely wondering about the logic of holding back for social but not academic.

If I hold my DS back it would be perpetuating the insanity IMO, but at this point he is not ready academically (still one more year before K for him though so I am not panicking quite yet.) I am already stressing out about what to do with him, because I think he will be ready for K socially, but not academically.

[Melaine]

I agree. My August 06 DS is old enough for K next year. Academically he is ready for K. I don't believe in holding back to give a child an academic advantage.

The thing is, he's not ready. He still takes 2-3 hour naps daily. He is immature for his age. I don't think he's ready. DH (teacher) doesn't think he's ready. His preschool teacher doesn't think he's ready. DS1 is in K right now and knows DS2 well, she doesn't think he is ready.

He would be a huge disruption in the classroom. He lacks impulse control. When he's tired (as in, at the end of a full day of school), it's worse.

I would be devastated if I was required to send him to K next year. It would make for a horrific start for his public school education.

So confused...he will turn 7 in August? So you aren't sending him to K until next year and he will be 8? Am I misreading?

[AnnieW625]

I agree. My August 06 DS is old enough for K next year. Academically he is ready for K. I don't believe in holding back to give a child an academic advantage.

The thing is, he's not ready. He still takes 2-3 hour naps daily. He is immature for his age. I don't think he's ready. DH (teacher) doesn't think he's ready. His preschool teacher doesn't think he's ready. DS1 is in K right now and knows DS2 well, she doesn't think he is ready.

He would be a huge disruption in the classroom. He lacks impulse control. When he's tired (as in, at the end of a full day of school), it's worse.

I would be devastated if I was required to send him to K next year. It would make for a horrific start for his public school education.

Does your district have am or pm kindergarten? I went to Am kinder because I still napped until I was 6. My DD1 was in full day kinder and would nap at 5 pm in the car or was in bed most nights in kinder by 7:30.

your son's birthday is August 6, 2008, right?

[georgiegirl]

It drives me bonkers unless the kid is within say 2 months of the cut off or has real developmental issue. My DS (mid-july b-day) will turn 5 four weeks before he starts K. I will send him on time unless his pre-K teachers strongly recommend to hold him back. I have a friend whose DS is born at the end of April and she's holding him back...he's almost 5 months away from the cut-off (9/15). I don't want kids 15 months older than my DS in his same class, especially since DS is about 2 months away from the cut-off. I'm fine with a range of 15 months total, kids who are born in July and August can go either way. I don't want my child to be disadvantaged because people hold their kids back who are technically ready. I think red shirting should be the exception rather than the rule.

So I think it is well within the school district's right to "force" the girl to start first rather than K, especially since the cut off for California is in the fall.

[sariana]

I am support of such a rule, but with some leeway. If a kid's birthday is within 60 days of the cutoff, I am OK with parents choosing to redshirt. But I think there should be some sort of (documented) extenuating circumstances beyond that. I don't think parents should get to choose to send a kid to K on any timetable they deem acceptable. 6.5 and 7 year olds do not belong in K (again, barring other circumstances).

I agree with this, in essence. I think it should be incumbent upon the parents to provide evidence for why their child should be held back. It shouldn't be simply "because we don't think he's ready" without some documentation to support that.

[sariana]

I agree. My August 06 DS is old enough for K next year. Academically he is ready for K. I don't believe in holding back to give a child an academic advantage.

The thing is, he's not ready. He still takes 2-3 hour naps daily. He is immature for his age. I don't think he's ready. DH (teacher) doesn't think he's ready. His preschool teacher doesn't think he's ready. DS1 is in K right now and knows DS2 well, she doesn't think he is ready.

He would be a huge disruption in the classroom. He lacks impulse control. When he's tired (as in, at the end of a full day of school), it's worse.

I would be devastated if I was required to send him to K next year. It would make for a horrific start for his public school education.

Then you would provide those reasons, and it would be up to the school (and/or district) to make a determination in that case. Most people who have commented on this topic in the past have allowed that exceptions should be made when there is a true reason for it.

BUT, what if a year from now your DS still demonstrates those traits? Would you hold him back ANOTHER year? Is holding back a year really the solution, or does he need support in the classroom to overcome those things?

[pinkmomagain]

Kids have already turned 7 in K, and my DD is not yet 6.

Wow! Seven year olds in Kindy??? I'm shocked! I cannot even imagine. My dd is 7 and in 2nd grade.

Redshirting is not very popular in my area. I do hear of November-born (boys mostly) sometimes being held back (our cut-off is Dec 1). It seems to me if there is a legitimate issue of developmental concern then it is the district's responsibility to supplement the child's education with support services.