Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, yeah, it's a problem now because people aren't following the cutoffs anymore.
But again, parents who hold back aren't crazy, there are real reasons.
For example, kids at the younger end of a class are 25% more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD. ADHD is obviously diagnosed by observation, including teacher observations which weigh heavily. So teachers are seeing behavior as ADHD when it could just be a maturity issue.
I agree that there isn't much difference between two kids born a month apart. But now if you send an August or September baby who makes the cutoff, you're looking at your kid being the youngest by up to 18 months.
i'm sorry, i'm having massive brain farts today. so if you sent your 4 year old kid to school this year, and he/she was born in august of 2007...why would their many kids in the class anymore than 12 months older (august 2006), assuming that was the cutoff month? wouldn't they have mostly attended in the prior year, as 4 year olds?
well, there's research that shows it doesn't level out for all. it's just a theory of course, but the idea is that the kids who get selected for the traveling baseball/basketball/soccer team will be the kids who were born earlier in the year, because they are the best amongst their "peers" - then they are more likely to get a scholarship to college, or go even further. similar idea with academics. i'm not saying i buy this 100%, it just doesn't sound insane to me at all.
i'm confused by the kids born in late 02 didn't go to school with kids born in early 2001...how is that sort of thing happening now? why would a kid born in late 2007 go to school with a kid born in early 2006...how is it even possible to delay a kid that long?
i'm just talking about the cut off year. if you're born in late 2007, and held back a year...you wouldn't go to school this spring, you'd go next spring, in 2012, with the kids born in early 2008 wouldn't you?
because people are holding back kids! my kids go to school with kids born in late Sept 1998 (cutoff is 10/1), and the oldest being March 1997 (!!!!) - it's absurd ESPECIALLY when it's sports related. A lot of sports are starting to combat that silliness however and defining age ranges for travel sports instead of grade.
my kids are born in may (late) - normal age distribution would dictate they are younger than 66% of their class - it's seriously more like 80-85%. it doesn't **** me off they are the one of the youngest (someone has to be) but it's crazy that they are in class with kids nearly a year older. not that they are struggling mind you, I just find the age range absurd!
i'm sorry, i'm having massive brain farts today. so if you sent your 4 year old kid to school this year, and he/she was born in august of 2007...why would their many kids in the class anymore than 12 months older (august 2006), assuming that was the cutoff month? wouldn't they have mostly attended in the prior year, as 4 year olds?
sorry - i don't know what i'm missing. lol
because mommie has precious born in april 2006. come september 2011, precious *may* be one of the youngest in the class and *oh heavens* we can't have that! so mommie (and daddie) hold back precious to start in sept. 2012, at the age of nearly 6.5.
i'm sorry, i'm having massive brain farts today. so if you sent your 4 year old kid to school this year, and he/she was born in august of 2007...why would their many kids in the class anymore than 12 months older (august 2006), assuming that was the cutoff month? wouldn't they have mostly attended in the prior year, as 4 year olds?
sorry - i don't know what i'm missing. lol
So let's say a kid was born in September 2006. That would mean they would be eligible to go to K this coming September 2011, because they would be 5 before the cutoff date.
Ok. But with people redshirting, this kid isn't just going to be the youngest by 11-12 months anymore.
If people are redshirting their June, May and even April babies (and even March), now this kid could be the youngest by 18 months. In other words, he could be in a class with a bunch of kids born in spring 2005, making those kids up to 6.5 years old when they walk in the Kindergarten door. Versus this kid who is just 5.0 years.
For preschool, there are a whole bunch of transitional Kindergartens now popping up, for those generally born in the second half of any year. The redshirted kids may even have gone to a Pre-K 4s program with the 5.0 year old kid.
But now they go on to do an extra year in a transitional K before real K. So they also get a whole extra year of preschool the 5.0 year old didn't get, another advantage.
because mommie has precious born in april 2006. come september 2011, precious *may* be one of the youngest in the class and *oh heavens* we can't have that! so mommie (and daddie) hold back precious to start in sept. 2012, at the age of nearly 6.5.
you may laugh, but you'll see!
i would think that hinders the kid born in april 2006 more...doesn't it? wouldn't an april baby be about in the middle of the age group in their class, generally speaking? they'd be older than may, june, july, aug, sept. if you kept them back, they'd now be 6 yrs, 5 months...jeez. they'd be a giant in the class i would figure. i'd hope that this is just a handful. i guess i wouldn't be shocked though.
So let's say a kid was born in September 2006. That would mean they would be eligible to go to K this coming September 2011, because they would be 5 before the cutoff date.
Ok. But with people redshirting, this kid isn't just going to be the youngest by 11-12 months anymore.
If people are redshirting their June, May and even April babies (and even March), now this kid could be the youngest by 18 months. In other words, he could be in a class with a bunch of kids born in spring 2005, making those kids up to 6.5 years old when they walk in the Kindergarten door. Versus this kid who is just 5.0 years.
For preschool, there are a whole bunch of transitional Kindergartens now popping up, for those generally born in the second half of any year. The redshirted kids may even have gone to a Pre-K 4s program with the 5.0 year old kid.
But now they go on to do an extra year in a transitional K before real K. So they also get a whole extra year of preschool the 5.0 year old didn't get, another advantage.
I see this more going on with boys by the way.
ok, i see. so parents who have a kid born well ahead of the cutoff are holding their kids back a year. i see. but i'm not sure i see why a parent would do that. i guess that makes him/her the favorite for "best" in the class because of obvious developmental advantages...but then he/she is also going to be a full grade behind most of his friends...unless you can successfully convince them to be friends will all kids younger. does that happen?
because mommie has precious born in april 2006. come september 2011, precious *may* be one of the youngest in the class and *oh heavens* we can't have that! so mommie (and daddie) hold back precious to start in sept. 2012, at the age of nearly 6.5.
you may laugh, but you'll see!
I'm somewhat disgusted by this. Why would anyone hold an April child back? and what is wrong with being the youngest in the class?
I was the youngest in my class throughout high school because I skipped a grade. I loved it and I did well academically and socially.
My daughter will be the youngest (I'm pretty sure) in class when she starts Kindergarten this Sept.
I'm always under the impression that redshirting happens more in the midwest than in the east coast.
i'm just thinking about my classmates in grade school, HS, and college...and i don't recall any of my friends being that much younger than me (february bday). i do know many kids the next year ahead of me who were nov/dec bdays, soonly a few months older than me. maybe it's more common now.
there's a website somewhere with this data. hahaha
I'm somewhat disgusted by this. Why would anyone hold an April child back? and what is wrong with being the youngest in the class?
I was the youngest in my class throughout high school because I skipped a grade. I loved it and I did well academically and socially.
My daughter will be the youngest (I'm pretty sure) in class when she starts Kindergarten this Sept.
i was on the younger side as well, as were most of my friends. my dad had an april birthday and was the youngest since he started early (he was not quite 4.5) - they also wanted to skip him!
if you were to poll any high school graduating class, i would guarantee you can't draw correlations between success and birth order.
now, i wouldn't say this is running rampant, but it DOES exist (especially with boys) and you'll run into a few extreme examples, I'm sure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
