|
0 members (),
68
guests, and
219
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,299 Likes: 2 |
It has a brief (positive, even) mention of the needs of kids who start reading before they enter kindergarten. Article about redshirting in the NY Times Val
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,299
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,299 |
Thanks for posting that. The author asked the question about kids who are reading before K but it started off with: At the other tip of the age span, parents who promote children to kindergarten before 5 are often seen as pushy, �even ogre-ish,� Yikes!  I also saw this article recently on the same subject: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...93950498.html?KEYWORDS=sue+shellenbargerThe end of the article sounds like it could have come from A Nation Deceived if you replace "students who have been held back" with gifted: Children who remain interested in school, and whose parents have a positive attitude toward their academic prospects from the beginning of first grade, have less risk of dropping out, Dr. Alexander's research shows. Keeping kids engaged, such as sports or other activities, is especially important for students who have been held back.
Last edited by inky; 08/23/10 05:41 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 683
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 683 |
I just dropped DS5 off for his first day of kindergarten. With a November birthday he should be one of the oldest kids in the class -- we have an October cutoff. Surveying the line today, I would guess he is in the middle age-wise.
When age-grouping ends up being closer to a 2 year span, these articles make me wonder why we do age-based grouping at all. It seems a much better argument for ability-based grouping.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,299
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,299 |
When age-grouping ends up being closer to a 2 year span, these articles make me wonder why we do age-based grouping at all. It seems a much better argument for ability-based grouping. There was a great blog post about this "tracking by age": Ironically, the grade-level, whole-class groupings apparently preferred by these teachers who bemoan ability-grouping are the most restrictive form of tracking, that by age. For a century (-ish), schools have "tracked" students based on when they were born, not based on what they are ready and able to learn. "Born between September 1, 2003, and August 31, 2004? You belong to the Class of 2022." That is how it works in nearly every school in our country. It's tracking by age, but no one calls it that. Let's start calling it that! http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/unwrapping_the_gifted/2010/07/abandoning_age-tracking.html
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 81
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 81 |
Our DD is likely the youngest in her 1st grade class since her b-day is 5 weeks past the state's cutoff. She is more petite than most of her classmates, but not hugely so. However she's likely to be smaller no matter what. I'm 5'6" and my DH is 5'7" (that's 168 cm and 170 cm, respectively).
Some of the kids in her class do look to be 2 years older though. I'm sure that there's red-shirting going on. At the same time, I can't imagine her being in K this year... reading at 2nd grade level, working on fractions and multiplication...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 247
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 247 |
My son is in 2nd grade - turned 7 in June - so is one of the youngest, but not the youngest (he knows of a couple who have August birthdays). He was very excited to tell me that he is no longer the shortest kid in his class - a new girl started who is smaller than him  Unfortunately, he got my genes (I'm 5'0" - dh is 6"2" - so we're hoping he'll catch up...eventually). It was quite funny watching him play soccer this past weekend against the HUGE U10 team !
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,840
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,840 |
I'll bet the author of this article has never been around MG/PG kids who have been radically accelerated.
The subtle assumption is that all kids are the same, in skill level and motivation, and that is not true.
A lot of red-shirting occurs around here. Mostly for sports reasons. And by 6/7 years of age, kids are already segregated onto "premier" teams vs regular teams. You've got kids who can throw balls 50 yards and can run 6.0 40s. Imagine suggesting they stick to learning how to throw and run.
If we put the same level of thought into academics that we do sports, things would be different.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 247
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 247 |
If we put the same level of thought into academics that we do sports, things would be different. So true - as I have mentioned before, my just turned short 7 year old was asked to participate in a new soccer program, where most of the kids are at least a year older than him - with several of them being late 9's and 10's. Don't see that happening any time soon at school
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 701
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 701 |
Did anyone see the segment on the Today Show (and I'm sure there were segments on other shows as well) about the youngest kids in the class being 60% more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD? The expert on the show thus concluded that a primary solution to that problem is to redshirt. No mention of the fact that teachers should not be diagnosing anything. Meredith Viera did mention that some kids might be acting out in school because the academics weren't challenging enough, but then the expert said that what the teachers say is true: "the academics might be right, but the youngest kid in the class will always be the last kid on the bus, both literally and figuratively." The whole segment just made me so frustrated that these myths are so prevalent and that the solution offerred up is redshirting!
Last edited by mnmom23; 08/23/10 11:30 AM.
She thought she could, so she did.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,777
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,777 |
If redshirting is the answer then why is there such a push for the new earlier head start options, or whatever they're called? They don't want kindergartners at 4 or 5 years old, they want them at 5 or 6. But they want the 3 year old pre- pre-k to be offered in more places and to everybody not just the poorest families. Maybe restructuring the age groups is just to make room for the new younger grades. Or is it the other way around? Are the new younger grades allowing wiggle room to adjust the ages of the classes and like they said make the kindergarten be the new first grade. And I'm still confused if pre-k is just an extra class for the at risk kids or if it's the new play-based school orientation replacing the old kindergarten class? It's kind of cool they're re-structuring everything right now; it's just kind of hard to follow what's going on. ... "History unfolds before us."
Youth lives by personality, age lives by calculation. -- Aristotle on a calendar
|
|
|
|
|
