Mark's Modest Educational Proposal (for Parents of Preschool Boys)

If the following suggestion were carried out it would surely not cure all the problems of American education. But it might be a big step in the right direction. And it could be done by any parent of a male preschooler. No new programs, taxes, mandates, or anything, accept, perhaps, more personal resources spent on day care or home care. It was presented to me one morning in our teachers' lounge by my friend Mark, a highly-respected Fifth Grade teacher with about 25 years experience (and two successfully-grown sons). It is supported by my own experience as a Middle and High School teacher, and all kinds of documentation that I have seen over the years, but cannot cite. To Wit:

A great many, but not all, boys should be held back from entering school for an additional year.

Boys (from here on, "boys" is intended to mean "most boys". Maybe not your boy) are not ready for school at the age that kids are traditionally sent to school, and they do not catch up by the end of high school. This gets them into all kinds of trouble, and we all pay for it.

-Boys get into trouble more often in school.

-Boys get referred to special ed more often.

-Boys get medicated for hyperactivity more often.

-Boys (I'm pretty sure, especially since they don't get pregnant, but not enitrely sure since they do get girls pregnant) drop out of school more often.

-Partly because they drop out of school, boys commit far more crimes than girls do. Then they get arrested, go to jail, and have their lives ruined far more often then girls do (though they take many a girl down with them, as we all know).

-Boys no longer do as well in school as girls do, and as a result, go to college less often these days. I think they are also attending law and medical schools less often.

(Anecdote: This past weekend,  spouse and I were at Parent's Weekend at our daughter's mildly-selective [30% of applicant's accepted] state college. We happened to be sitting next to their recuititment V.P., and asked why 2/3 of entering class  were girls. He told me research was depressingly absent, but it seemed to be that many boys were just not mature enough to be competitive. "Senior girls are largely interested in getting good grades. Boys are still largely interested in being cool." He added that about 1/3 of boys in one of the few studies extant went to college right away, about a 1/3 went eventually, and 1/3 they lost track of. In other words, many boys were simply not mature enough for college at H.S. grad time. Our daughter then chimed in with a list of her male classmates who, she said, were about as smart as she , but lacked the maturity to settle down and work to get in more comptetive schools.

So, Mark thinks, and I agree, that parents of pre-school boys should seriously consider holding them back for a year to allow them time to grow, mature, and prepare for the rigors of school.

Lots, and, lots, and lots, of kids, mostly boys, I think, get  held back eventually anyway because they can't pass the high-stakes testing. It might at least  save some heartache if the holding back occurred   at a time when it wouldn't matter to much to the kid.

-Obviously, a boy who is bouncing off the walls in his desire to go to school should be allowed to do so.
-Only public educational questions I can think of are:
  1. Need for more research on the issue.
  2. Need for sufficient resources for additonal preschool/child care.

You get the idea. Sorry I can't cite research or do links. I tried for 30 minutes, then gave up. Some boys never learn what they need to.

•  Sorry about poll.

  there were supposed to be other choices.
  Back to "comments only" land, I guess.

  by faithnomore on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 06:58:00 AM PDT

•  There is too much chicken and egg stuff

  here to ever sort it out.  Are boys not ready for school, or are schools not ready for boys?  If they aren't ready, why not?  Is it physical, emotional, intellectual?  Do their mother's cut them more slack or have less patience with them? Are they too buzy playing sports with Dad? Also this is a prime candidate for the Law of Unintended Consequences.

  by MadRuth on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 07:09:04 AM PDT

•  I don't think that is the solution

  I have 2 boys.  Both were intellectually ready to learn but one lacked the ability to sit and pay attention for long periods of time.

  It's not the children who are not ready for school.  The schools are not child friendly.

  I homeschooled my second son.  Rather than sit and do work sheets and such, I had him run down the hall to select the correct answer while I timed him.  If he made a quick trip he saved the world.  Sheesh, it's NOT THAT HARD!

  Schools are no longer about teaching they are about indoctrination.

  by TXsharon on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 07:20:06 AM PDT

  •  Brilliant!

    Schools are way too much about sitting in neat little rows and not enough about learning and exploring and having fun.

    My daughter spent the summer in dance camp where she was active and socializing and came home ready to sit quietly and work/play on her own. Now she's in kindergarten and she comes home wanting people to entertain her and manage her activities.

    by elfling on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 07:26:34 AM PDT

    •  Try Montessori

      and push your local school district to offer it.

      by philgoblue on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 08:08:14 AM PDT

  •  I can't imagine a whole class doing that.

    There are some 'disorders' that benefit from regular  intense or strenuous physical activity.  It often helps to calm down individuals and allows them to concentrate and minimizes restlessness.

    But what you did one on one with your son, I really can't imagine one teacher doing with an entire class.  Schools are really meant to deal well with the middle of the bell curve.  The kids on the further reaches of the curves end up in special ed classes, private schools or homeschooled.

    by Fabian on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 07:46:57 AM PDT

    •  I have seen a few rare teachers do this kind of

      thing. It can and should be done. It is not that hard.

      You march your kids out to the playground or the gym.  Put the answer to what letter says "ah" like father and "a" like apple.  Johnny, go find that letter.  Ready, set, go!  Great job Johnny Or Sally go help Johnny.  Now it's Freddy's turn.

      I once saw my friend teach her class division with remainders by moving the kids around the classroom.  Nobody was sitting.

      by TXsharon on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 07:52:27 AM PDT

  •  Wow!

    That's a great idea!  What fun he must have had!

    by eru on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 09:18:38 AM PDT

•  delaying entry

  for boys does nothing to address the gender stereotypes that adversely affect girls and boys in different ways;

  nor does it help to make schools more child-centered.

  Why shift blame and responsibility to the victims?
  

  by draftchrisheinz on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 07:22:59 AM PDT

  •  if fact it makes them worse

    Hawaii has a couple of really rigorous and elite private schools.  They have a policy of accepting girls who turn 5 by june of the kindergarten year, but only accept boys who turn 5 by January 1 (or something like that).  

    By high school, the boys are all six months older than the girls.  Talk about reinforcing dominance stereotypes.

    by sophiebrown on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 07:51:55 AM PDT

•  Maybe

  Boys and girls do seem to mature at different rates, and a recognition of that would probably help. But I don't see that holding them back a year would make much difference. IME, 19 year old boys are just as vain and unconcerned about school as 18 year old boys.
  

  by elfling on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 07:23:43 AM PDT

  •  elementary school is one thing

    college another.  I think there is possibly a cultural bias towards not letting girls 'get away' with goofing off and encouraging them to become productive as soon as possible.  We may have gone from marrying our daughters off quickly(to gain security via marriage) to emphasizing that they need to be independent and self sufficient ASAP.

    I'm not sure why we allow our boys so much slack as a society.  Perhaps it is because we think they have an innate advantage over girls and aren't required to be as skilled and educated to succeed?

    by Fabian on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 08:28:52 AM PDT

    •  yes

      Yes, yes, yes.

      by draftchrisheinz on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 11:47:12 AM PDT

•  suggestion for parents?

  teach your child to read before s/he gets to grade school.  There is nothing more important. If a child starts out already reading, while it's contemporaries are still struggling to learn, that child is already ahead of the game.

  I taught my own daughter to read at age 5, back in the early 70s, (by kerosene lantern light, no less) in a few weeks, using a very good "programmed learning" text I got from the state textbook depository for about ten bucks. She wound up on a Regent's Scholarship to UC Berkeley, graduating with honors.

  That programmed instruction text was so beneficial that her little brother, two years younger, absorbed most of it at the same time, and he was reading before he got into grade school as well.  By the time both kids got tested on reading level in school, they both tested off the charts.

  There is no way to overstress the importance of this, the enormous boost to self esteem a child gets by being ahead at this point. No parent has any excuse whatever for not doing this for their child.  I don't think I put in more than a month of working with my kids on this before they were off on their own, reading.

  by claude on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 07:28:06 AM PDT

  •  Bingo!

    My son started showing an interest in reading at 4.  Since he was so young, I picked a curriculum for children with learning disabilities because it looked FUN.  He is now 10yo and reading at an early college level.  He read Beowulf when he was 8, Lord of the Rings and Les Miserables at 9.  In other words, he reads as well or better than I do.

    Last year I discovered that he is dyslexic.  If public school had taught him to read, well, he wouldn't be reading!
    

    by TXsharon on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 07:42:47 AM PDT

•  general consensus is: yes, hold them back

  My son's birthday is in August.  He is in special ed preschool and partly due to his disability and partly due to his birthdate, I have no intention of putting him into kindergarten until he is 6.  his teacher is quite happy with this decision.

  When he went to preschool he was just 3 and was the youngest child in his class.  He wasn't intentionally making trouble but he had great difficulty with group activities and would fidget, giggle, try to interact with his classmates and in general not pay attention.  Was there anything wrong with him?  I don't think so.  This year he has greatly improved.  He can sit and listen, isn't instantly distracted and doesn't make silly faces and poke his classmates.

  We did nothing over the summer except potty training.  His attention span and self restraint increased on its own. Boys, generally, progress socially and verbally at a slower rate than girls.  When school readiness is assessed, parents might think that it is important for their kids to know their letters, numbers and colors.  But what is more important is the ability to pay attention, stay on task and follow instructions.  Teachers would rather spend their energy teaching an entire class than keeping a disruptive individual in check.

  by Fabian on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 07:33:25 AM PDT

  •  Another side

    When my son was 4yo I gave him some kindergarten work to do.  His reply: "I'm dumb!"  I protested but he insisted because: "My work is dumb so that means I am dumb."  I promptly gave him 1st grade work.

    School doesn't and shouldn't have to be all about sitting still and paying attention.  LOTS of, MANY and maybe even MOST kids learn while moving and doing.

    by TXsharon on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 07:47:44 AM PDT

    •  There are many private, alternative schools

      that follow this philosophy that kids learn by doing.  But I can't honestly expect public schools(with all the pressure of testing and NCLB) to do this.  If my son is ever unable to function well in a standard classroom, I'll look for an alternative.  But right now his speech, social skills and self restraint are improving and he is doing well.

      And now that he is potty trained(praise creation!) he can go to different summer activities on his own.  The zoo had some great ones but they either needed a parent(who is busy with the pesky younger sibling) or toilet trained toddler.  Next summer....will be different.

      by Fabian on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 07:59:38 AM PDT

•  my son is ten

  and in sixth grade.  it is best not to generalize about when kids are ready to learn.
  Some kids are disruptive in school because they are not sufficiently challenged.

  I think it is true that it is the constraints of school, rather than the content, that hampers many boys.  my son is in a small school where his bouncing off the walls is tolerated.  
  

  by sophiebrown on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 07:55:17 AM PDT

  •  My 10yo is also in 6th

    by TXsharon on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 07:57:55 AM PDT

    •  mine is not a reader like yours

      I mean, he read early, but is only recently getting into reading for pleasure.  He's a math boy.  Always has been.  He went to a montessori preschool that really allowed him to develop and challenge his mathematical ability.  

      Are you looking forward to seventh?  I am not.  When Daniel skipped first grade I always figured we would do something different with his extra year, so he would hit intermediate at the same age as his class mates.  Only thing is -- he really doesn't like that idea.  He wants to go to seventh with his peer group, and I don't think it would be fair to yank him out of that, unless I had a really good reason.  Anyway, I don't have a really good reason, only a concern that he is too little for intermediate school....

      by sophiebrown on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 08:29:04 AM PDT

      •  My friend has a son

        Bright, gifted and Aspberger's.  His school didn't want to let him skip a year, so instead they let him take math classes with the next grade and mainstreamed him with his regular class. Both he and his older brother are official in class tutors for their classmates

        I'm not sure what the current bias against skipping a grade stems from, but if the schools make an effort to accomadote gifted students then I won't complain.  I think before gifted programs and the like, they just skipped grades because the kids were bored and making trouble.

        by Fabian on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 08:51:36 AM PDT

        •  Because even if the kid is very bright,

          he will probably be behind the older kids socially (especially if he has Asperger's).  The fact is, for bright kids, the socialization aspects of elementary school are as important is the educational aspects.  Once the kid gets into middle school/junior high, classes are much more segregated by ability and kids can take classes with the students in the higher grades.  

          by msanthrope on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 09:01:50 AM PDT

          •  Yeah, Aspberger's is like that.

            His parents are great and the school is pretty impressive for a public school.  He is failing one class because he is doing the homework but isn't handing it in.  Kids these days! :)

            (He and I have done the discussion about 'labelling'.  We like it because it gets our kids the help they need, but then it marks them as 'different' when we want them to fit in.)

            by Fabian on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 09:20:19 AM PDT

      •  My son was only in school for 3 semesters

        the rest of the time I have homeschooled him.  He went to public school the last half of 4th grade (when he should have been in 3rd but they moved him up) and for 5th grade.  I pulled him out of school to homeschool again this year.

        I really hate the public school culture and especially in middle school.  They may make fun of him and bully him because he is smaller but if you hold him back he will be bored.  Damned if you do...

        You have my sympathies.

        My son reads will but is not strong in Math.  He made Bs in math.

        by TXsharon on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 10:17:45 AM PDT

•  This was not intended to be a panacea

  and obviously is full of overgeneralizations.

  But boys  mature more slowly than girls.

  I wish someone with specific expertise, not just anecdotal (self included) would weith in on this.

  by faithnomore on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 07:56:13 AM PDT

•  Something to this

  I have an aunt who taught kindergarten for 30 years and we had a discussion one day about the age of children entering kindergarten.  She told me that she wished all children would have to be 6 years old to enter kindergarten because kids who start "early" because they have a birthday in the first few months of the school year versus those that are a half year older are significantly different in progress, understanding, attention span, etc.  We didn't talk specifically about boys vs. girls, but it was very clear that a half year makes a tremendous difference at that age.

  by Pennsylvanian on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 08:01:48 AM PDT

  •  but

    then you have the same argument the next year - that kids who are closer to 7, rather than just turning 6, are better equipped. Half a year makes a tremendous difference at that age, too, and at most ages until mid-adolescence.

    In this day and age, many of these issues are best suited for preschool. We need to demand comprehensive, quality preschool for all children and broaden access to education - not restrict it.

    by draftchrisheinz on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 11:52:16 AM PDT

•  And yet another side

  Preschool/daycare is expensive and the educational quality is somewhat unregulated.  Many parents are anxious to get their kids into public school as quickly as they are allowed because of the expense of private childcare. If we had more accessible, quality preschool, we might have better preparation for public school.

  Also, a lot of the ideas you present are not self-evidently the result of boys maturing more slowly than girls.

  For instance, the real reason more women go on to higher ed may be that it is more necessary for them to do so than it is for men.  A man can still make a good living without it.

  Boys, and in particular NONWHITE boys are referred to special ed more often.

  Boys are so often diagnosed ADD and ADHD that it has become practically normative.  This should be a cause for great concern, that what appears to be normal behavior for boys is being labeled as deviant.

  Those are just a few things I've thought about being a mother of two boys and educational researcher.

  by Tomato Observer on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 08:03:19 AM PDT

  •  my friend the kindergarten teacher

    would really agree with you.  The difference in preparedness amoung kids who have and have not been exposed to learning (whether at preschool or home)is much greater than any gender differences.
    

    by sophiebrown on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 08:32:20 AM PDT

•  I held my son back - but it was a disaster

  Here in Britain they start school in the year the child turns 5, starting from September.  My son has an August birthday.  As a result he was supposed to start school just after his 4th birthday - way too young.  As we planned to move during the year anyway, I decided not to start him at primary school but hold him in nursery school.  (I've read all the Ypsilanti studies on the damage starting boys too early does.)

  I kept him in nursery school an extra year, where he loved being the biggest child and was a model of enthusiasm and good behaviour.

  Bureaucracy ruined all that.  By educational policy he was required to join his "age peers" when he started school.  The cliques of friends were all formed among the first graders - he was an outsider.  The others had a year of school - he was the "dumbest" child in the class as well as the youngest.  His confidence collapsed, he became stressed, he lost his enthusiasm for school, and we both had to work twice as hard to get him up to the level of achievement of the rest of the class.

  Holding back a boy is something to consider, but there are trade-offs.

  by LondonYank on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 08:07:12 AM PDT

  •  age peers?

    I've never heard of that. But the UK is a different country and all.  It sounds stupid and inflexible.  

    by Fabian on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 08:42:40 AM PDT

  •  Sounds more like the Bureaucrats

    Screwed this up, that anything to do with his waiting a year. By forcing him to accellerate into an already formed group that was year ahead, he was set up to fail.

    by miguelmas on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 08:56:04 AM PDT

•  What would make more sense to me

  would be to have the option to evaluate all children as to their readiness to enter kindergarten.  I know a boy who was small for his age and dyslexic; his parents held him back a year and it seems to be working out fine.  But on the other hand, my younger daughter was ready for kindergarten, I thought, at age 4.  She has a January birthday, so she would have been over 4 1/2 when school started; plus, she could already read fluently, was very verbal, pretty mature for her age, used to being around older kids (because of her older sister's friends) and also extremely tall.  But the school district would not even consider letting her start early.  It would have taken an act of God to get her in at age 4, and we didn't want to push it as far as going to court.  So she waited a year and is doing fine in school (5th grade now), but she has never been very challenged even though she is in the G/T (gifted/talented) program.  Our school district, like most, is just not set up to handle kids who fall on either tail of the bell curve.  I don't see why the school can't have a process in place to evaluate four year olds who may be ready to start school early.

  by Freakinout daily on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 08:26:12 AM PDT

  •  there is no money

    I am the chair of the board of a small charter school.  The school has kids on both ends of the bell curve -- it's a perfect place for them, because we are well set up to respond to individual needs.  (That's what brought many of us there in the first place -- kids on the edges of the bell curve)

    We see many school-ready four year-olds.  But we can't do anything for them, because the state will not pay to educate them.  When we get them at five, we'll let them attend first grade classes if they are ready, and many are.

    by sophiebrown on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 08:37:02 AM PDT

  •  depends on the state

    and whether or not the family is willing to take on the cost.

    We have friends whose daughter turned 5 two weeks after the cut off for starting K. Two weeks is a joke - I was 2 weeks past my due date with my second; lots of people have earlier labors. They went through all the hoops - cognitive and psychological assessment - and she was in.

    It's a pretty big burden on the family, though, and on the kid when they're being told that their performance will determine whether or not they get to go to school.

    by draftchrisheinz on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 11:55:32 AM PDT

•  Try Inverting the Proposition

  Instead of holding kids back, we need to start them earlier. Preschool, public and free, starting at age three. Ross Perot made some noise about this kind of thing a few years back... three year olds are ready to learn, by the time a kid hits six, that energy is going in a different direction.

  My now 13 year old son was born Oct. 8, his 7 y.o. sister, the 9th of Oct. I had to fight to get both of them in first grade the year they each turned six. The 13 y.o.is now in 8th grade, reading at a University level and taking honors algebra. His sister is in second grade, reading high above her level as well.

  The 13 y.o. started out at 21/2 in a montessori, we moved to Mexico six months later. He went into a public pre-school in Mexico at age 3, loved it and learned. When he came back to the states at 5 1/2, he wanted to go into first grade. The schoold district said they woulddo it of he scored highly on two different I.Q. tests. This was for 1 month  and 8 days of age difference. Bullcrap!

  We moved to a district that allowed him to enter first grade. He took off like a rocket.

  by miguelmas on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 08:53:22 AM PDT

  •  A Little More While I'm at It

    I have an idea that daycare, as it's structured, is not as good an idea as preschool.. I also wonder if extended stays in daycare don't in some way contribute to all the "hyperactivity" we see. Just a thought, no conclusions....

    by miguelmas on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 09:05:33 AM PDT

    •  Well, dang! What am I doing at home?

      I've got to admit there are all kinds of preschools, daycares and babysitting.  These businesses aren't much regulated outside of health and safety issues.  And I'd think that all manner of people would scream if you tried to tell them what they should do.

      But then  <sniff!> I'm going to get a serious inferiority complex for not putting my kids into preschool programs in order to get them ready for school.  Maybe I should go back to work so we could afford it?

      I admit I don't read to my kids as much as they tell me I should.  The two year old rips the pages out.  My four year old sometimes reads to me and sometimes I read to him.  The arts and crafts are limited.  The two year old would rather scribble on his tray(and the floors, walls and furniture) than on a flimsy piece of paper.  We do go out to play and the library. Going elsewhere is tough since the two year old is now into exploring aka taking off unsupervised.  I used to deal with this pretty well when I had only one body to keep track of, but now I can't do it.  Cruising the mall is done with the two of them strapped into a stroller.

      I'm jealous of any stay at home parent who has only one kid.  Those were the days!

      by Fabian on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 09:34:12 AM PDT

      •  socialization & school readiness

        can be accomplished in a (quality) preschool/daycare setting, or in SAHM/D groups with that focus.

        It's not the setting that matters so much as the interaction.

        by draftchrisheinz on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 11:57:28 AM PDT

        •  It takes a lot of effort

          to get the social interaction with my two kids.  I was ever so grateful for the special ed preschool.  It accomplished several things.  One was getting all his needed therapy sessions in one place.  No more juggling appointments and naptimes and commuting to various times and places.  Another was socialization and the last one was feedback from adults who had more contact with my son than an hour every two weeks.  Parents of any child can be less than objective, parents of disabled children tend to be worse.

          Socialization - playdates sound like the ideal solution, but I went from one child, to a two year old and a nursing infant and it wasn't until my oldest was three that we would interrupt or skip his nap without serious consequences.  Before then, it was a stretch to do something as trivial as grocery shopping when everyone(including me) was clean, dressed, not hungry and not crabby.  Even going to therapy was a three to four hour excursion.  We went early, beat traffic, got breakfast in the hospital cafeteria, went to therapy, broke for a snack and then joined the toddler playtime for as long as we lasted.  Often it blew away an entire morning for officially just one hour of therapy.  But I enjoy taking my time with my kids, it is one of perks of being a SAHM.  

          by Fabian on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 12:36:46 PM PDT

          •  one thing I've learned

            with two kids (5 and 2) is that clean, dressed, not hungry, and not crabby are all pretty negotiable.

            I'm not sure the extent of your son's disability or special needs, and that may likely change a lot of things. We have tended to be what a friend calls "adventure parents" - taking the kids out to eat with us since they were a week old, and so on. It not only becomes easier for us, but for them too, the more often we do things.

            by draftchrisheinz on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 06:52:38 PM PDT

      •  I am Talking Public Education Preschool

        My wife and I both are home all day... Our now 13 year old got lots of time with us, but the preschool (as opposed to private daycare or what may pass for pre-school) was invaluable in his development.

        I think we need to get rid of the terms kindergarten, etc. and use early school as a cover all term that indicates getting a child into a properly structered learning environment with other kids. Lots can be learned from Montessori, etc.

        Our now 7 year old daughter started preschool when she was 3 and went thru kindergarten until the year she turned 6. The school's official deadline for age cutoff is Sept. 1, but we were able to get her in 1st grade the year she turned 6, even tho her b-day is Oct. 9, because of the pre-school..

        Young kids are ready to learn...  

        by miguelmas on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 12:46:44 PM PDT

        •  Of course young kids are ready

          to learn.  No doubt!  Whether they are ready for a structured environment, and how the environment is structured is another discussion.

          I still remember sitting with my husband putting together raised beds outside.  We were using wood screws and a little four year old came by to watch and then she started to help by giving us the screws.  Her home environment was not 'ideal', far from it :( .  Yet she figured out how many screws we used per joint, and gave us exactly that many.  

          Little kids are smart things.  Adults often can't see past the lack of sophistication and language skills.

          by Fabian on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 01:02:22 PM PDT

          •  I totally agree with you

            About the value of the home experience...
            Problems are
            

            1. Lots of kids spend most of their pre-school and kinder years in day care or substandard kinders and pre-schools.. The public kinders I came into contact with would not take kid until he/she was 5, then only for a couple of hours per day. If you wanted "extended K" you paid... at a public school..

            2. I honestly believe a lot of socialization problems, learning problems, etc. would be resolved if we could let go of our babies for a four hour period during their 3 year, 5 hours when the're 4, etc.

            I also happen to believe in extended hours at the schools so working single parents don't have to spend a fortune on daycare and/or worry about where their kids are...

            Extending it even further, I wonder why schools can't function as community learning centers... for adults and kids..

            by miguelmas on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 01:39:15 PM PDT

            •  My son's preschool is only three hours

              Part of me is amazed that they run 12 kids per classroom(2 adults) through a series of activities including bathroom breaks, snacks, group and individual activities(therapy) in a mere three hours.

              At three he wasn't very good at all at dealing with structure and social interaction.  At four he is much better.  So I'd revise your schedule to the hours should be equal to the child's age.  At age three, three hours was plenty.

              Of course, I was and still am a little jealous of little 16 month old girls who would chatter away when I had to wait until my oldest was three before he started to talk and my two year old is following the same pattern of delayed speech.  Nonverbal toddlers can't communicate easily and are prone to bouts of frustration.

              by Fabian on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 02:37:38 PM PDT

•   Reactions to comments.

  1.Are DKos posters representitive of the general parent population, in terms of how effectively they prepare their kids for school?  Are their kids representitive of boys starting school?

   2.My friend said that he thought some of boys hyperactivity and various special needs diagnoses was because boys were immature, not all of it, or most of it. Those who do might benefit from a later start. (Assuming the parent makes the right decision).

  3. I don't accept various criticism of schools as arguments against holding kids back. If I had a five -year-old right son now, I would want to know something I could now, whether or not I was working to make schools better. And, if you want to talk about unintended consequences, you can't do better than "school reform". Open Classrooms, New Math, Community Control, NCLB, etc., etc.

  by faithnomore on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 08:53:29 AM PDT

  •  Boys will be boys?

    What is the functional norm?  We shouldn't expect all kids to be perfect students, sit quietly, pay attention and not act up.  We should expect that once a student becomes a persistent distraction and disruption to the class as a whole, that something should be done about it.  Sometimes it is as simple as giving a bored student additional responsibilities.  Sometimes the parents need to become more involved.

    http://fetchingjen.blogspot.com/2005/09/effeminization-of-americas-boys.html
    This is from Fetching Jen.  Warning - if you have never been exposed to this blog, take a deep breath before you dive in.  Look for the comment at the end by Sacramento Republicrat and read.  

    What happened there?  The parent made it clear to their kid that how they did in the classroom was important and that the parent took it seriously.  The result?  The kid worked harder and the teacher chilled out.  

    (Fetching Jen can be pretty hard to take - I read it as an indicator of how True Believers are doing.  If you look her blog over for passionate defenses of Bush and company, it is awfully quiet over there.)

    Sometimes I think the 'Boys will be boys' excuse is overused when people use it to deflect criticism of their kids.

    by Fabian on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 01:26:43 PM PDT

•  I don't agree

  I know of many parents who kept their boys back from starting kindergarten -- often to give them "an edge" when they started school, and some so that they'll be bigger when eligable to play high school sports!

  As the mother of a son who started kindergarten at 5, I saw one unanticipated consequence.  If some of the boys in a class are almost a full year older than the others, the boys who are in their proper class can suffer intimidation.  My son is tall for his age, but he was literally overshadowed by the 6-year-olds in his kindergarten class.  That's just not fair.

  AND these 6-year-olds had major attitude problems, in part because they had been totally bored staying in preschool an extra year.  Now in 3rd grade these kids are finally straightening out, but the first two years of school were not pretty.

  Moral of the story:  there's no one-size-fits-all solution for education.

  by eru on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 09:17:35 AM PDT

  •  Good points

    I will share them with my friend and see what he has to say.

    by faithnomore on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 09:47:50 AM PDT

•  I started my boys on time

  but when we moved them to another school, we let them repeat a grade.  This has caused no problems at all...actually, it has been beneficial.  They were not prepared academically compared to other kids...thats what parents always need to be on the look out for...schools might seem to be doing adequately, but if you need to make a change, take a close, close look.

  My oldest are twin girls with August birthdays.  They started kindergarten on time, but were a little behind.  At that time, their school offered a great "pre-first grade" program that bridged between first and second.  Its too bad more schools aren't doing this.

  What I have noticed:  I have four daughters and three sons.  Boys are behind girls in language development and elementary schools are not necessarily set up in favor of what most think of as "male learning styles".  To be honest, most schools are not set up for my parenting style...and this can cause problems because it often seemed as if we were at cross purposes with a couple of them.  They wanted the "sit down, shut up" style of child, and were insulted when me or my children actually questioned.  They wanted to produce adults who would be members of a go along to get along society.  Not my idea.

  This particular elementary school served many children from lower socio-economic classes.  Many of these kids had been on their own in one way or the other since they were very, very small...hence, they had a veneer of premature maturity about them, if you will...they were often pushed to grow up very quickly.  For this reason, my children seemed immature in some ways...I don't see the value of having 7 or 8 year olds trying to act 13.  In this type of setting, I can understand why parents might think about holding children back a year, especially if they have been cared for in the home, or by family members or friends in "traditional" type settings.

  by tjb22 on Mon Oct 10, 2005 at 09:33:51 AM PDT