Posts by Michelle Nelson4

A tentative new schedule just popped up here at the office, featuring those block periods we've been hearing about for tomorrow morning. It looks like 🙂 👍

I’m definitely on board with that.

So, we have this perfectly healthy, energetic kid who’s turning seven this fall. Even though they already finished preschool, Mom is deciding to enroll them in daycare one more year (both the standard daycare and the pre-K track). On top of that, she’s planning to spend the next twelve months doing intensive home tutoring—reading drills, writing exercises, the whole bit—all because she’s personally feeling anxious and frustrated about school based on her own difficult experiences.

It never even crossed her mind that maybe, just maybe, the child would breeze through the first-grade curriculum without any issues at all. There’s a real risk that by over-preparing, the kid will show up to school so bored that they might start acting out or getting into trouble 😁, depending on their temperament. Plus, isn't she inadvertently sending the message that school is some sort of dreaded obstacle rather than an adventure? Imagine being in preschool, seeing all your buddies buzzing with excitement about starting "big kid school," while you’re stuck sitting at home for another year for no apparent reason.

Look, objectively speaking—and I’m certainly no cheerleader for our public education system—most kids are more than capable of handling the first-grade workload. They go in happy, curious, and ready to learn, even in those schools people tend to complain about. A lot of what this mother is describing feels like proof that parents don't always know what’s truly best for their children, and that the government really needs to step up and provide better support systems. But knowing how things work with organizations like USA Swimming, I doubt there’s any actual protection for a child's rights; it usually just ends up being more senseless paperwork.

Sarah Hall53 said:It’s just one of those things, Tanita—even when there are actually enough kids in a school to justify having a dedicated religion class, they often don't bother setting it up. Instead, they just toss everyone together into two or three mixed groups... mostly because it helps the teachers hit their required hourly quotas more easily. I've definitely seen that happen firsthand back home.

I couldn't agree more. Especially when every grade level follows the exact same schedule and everyone stays for after-school care—there aren't really any logistical hurdles or difficult choices to make regarding grouping. They just make sure that under no circumstances does a religion teacher end up losing their required hours. I can almost picture the enrollment period now: parents being told the school will "do its best" to group all the non-religious students together just to prevent gaps in the master schedule. Honestly, imagine the sheer "delight" and the reaction from some of the 🤣

And those arguments about why kids "aren't in the library" are just brilliant. It’s common knowledge that our local school libraries are open Friday and Saturday from 8 AM straight through until 7 PM, every single day. They are available whenever a student isn't stuck in a religious studies class. 😵

Back when my kid was in first grade, there were maybe three or four times where they actually had religious studies on the schedule. Every single time it happened, we made it very clear to the school administration that it just wasn't something we were okay with. Then, in second grade, it didn't happen even once. Now that they're in third grade, I'm just crossing my fingers that it gets scheduled as either the very first period or the last one of the day—that way, they can either sleep in a little longer or just get home earlier...

Lawrence Torres56 said:Exactly! It’s like principals and school boards totally disregard the law when it comes to any other elective subject, but the second religion classes come up, they aren't just following the rules—they go way overboard by demanding consent from both parents just to cover their own backs and risk their jobs. And honestly? The state inspectors turn a blind eye to stuff like that 100% of the time.🙄
And you're spot on, this isn't about being imaginative; it's just pure human corruption.

No, it's much simpler than that. A person could just read the article and look at the photo of the questionnaire provided.🙂 But I suppose it's much easier to live in some sort of parallel universe where you can just ignore uncomfortable news and pretend everything being reported is just a complete fabrication.

We could be talking about the Stone Age here! I mean, back when I was in preschool in the 70s, they always used age-based cohorts to make sure everyone was ready for kindergarten at the right time. But looking at things in the 21st century, even though my kids are spread out across four different daycares now, most places still stick to those age groups, or if they don't, the classes are tiny—usually just a younger group and an older one.

I’ve touched on class sizes before, too. At our local daycare center here in the States, nursery groups usually start with about 24 kids and swell up to 28 by the time they hit that first preschool stage (around 3.5 to 4.5 years old), specifically because they want them aligned for school enrollment. We rarely see much turnover later on; you might get a few spots open up if someone moves away or switches to a specialized academy, but there's never a huge influx. Every single preschool group is packed. Honestly, if you have a group of twenty-eight 4-year-olds, I don't see how you're supposed to create a "mixed" class with a 50/50 split of preschoolers without either kicking half the kids out or splitting them into two separate rooms—and that just doesn't happen.

As for trends, a few years ago, our local school board actually pushed through some reforms specifically designed to reorganize existing groups. Their explicit goal was to move toward strict, age-based cohorts to streamline elementary school admissions. The idea of these "mixed" groups where half the class is pre-K seems unrealistic for us. In our area, the number of preschoolers would have to be double the rest of the class for that to work, but that’s just not how our daycare operates. Most kids start coming here around 2.5 years old, not 5.5. Maybe that model works in some suburban areas where most moms stay home or families rely on grandmas to babysit, but in our neighborhood, about 90% of parents are dual-income households living in their own apartments, so kids start daycare as early as possible.

We could be talking about the Stone Age here—I mean, back when I was starting preschool in the 70s, they used age-based cohorts specifically to prep kids for elementary school enrollment. But looking at how things work in the 21st century, I have four different kids currently enrolled in four different daycares, and almost all of them are in age-specific groups, or if they aren't, the classes are tiny and split into just two levels: younger and older.

Regarding class sizes, I’ve touched on this before. At our local daycare center, a toddler group starts with about 24 kids and swells to 28 by the time they hit the 3.5 to 4.5-year-old range, mostly because they stay grouped by age to align with school entry requirements. We rarely see many new enrollments later on; usually, any openings come from kids moving to specialized academies or families moving away, and those spots don't fill up quickly. Every single age-group class is packed. If you have a group of twenty-eight 4-year-olds, I honestly don't see how you're supposed to create a "mixed-age" classroom with a 50% preschooler ratio without either kicking half the kids out or splitting them into two separate classes—and let's be real, neither of those things ever happens.

As for recent trends, a few years ago, the administration here underwent a massive restructuring—it was quite a whirlwind, actually—with the explicit goal of establishing strict age-based cohorts to prepare children for kindergarten. The idea of these mixed-age groups where preschoolers make up 50% of the class implies there are twice as many pre-K kids as anyone else. That just isn't the reality at our facility. Most kids here start daycare as early as 2.5 years old, rather than waiting until they are 5.5. You might find that dynamic in areas where most moms stay home or where families live in multi-generational households with grandmothers helping out, but in our neighborhood, about 90% of parents are dual-income households living in their own apartments, meaning kids need reliable childcare from the earliest possible age.

Honestly, things in our preschools aren't quite where they should be. My take? It’s nothing out of the ordinary, because even when we face much bigger issues, the solution isn't to create more groups or hire extra teachers. Instead, we just cram the existing ones until they hit maximum capacity. And this is supposed to be the crown jewel of our entire education system! So, if anyone thinks delaying enrollment is a great fix, they really ought to think twice about how we're just trying to squeeze the same old results out of the same overstuffed classrooms. Personally, I don't mind having preschoolers around, but if someone decided next year to just completely wreck a group's dynamic by stuffing it full of "repeaters" who supposedly just needed "one more year of play," I wouldn't be able to sit idly by and watch that happen.

Regarding these mixed-age groups where 50% are preschoolers—that sounds like a very specific situation that I haven't encountered anywhere else. Usually, you either see mixed groups ranging from ages 3 to 7 where there's maybe a 20% split per age bracket (like in those specialized Montessori, sports, or language immersion programs), or they simply organize kids by their birth year.

Brian Jones8 said:Well, that’s news to me. From what I’ve heard, when kids stay on, the administration tries to place them in either a dedicated preschool class or a mixed-age group. There’s definitely professional staff involved whose job is to make sure a kid doesn't end up stuck in a room full of much younger toddlers.

The school already reached out to me, and we're scheduled to sit down and talk about it in early September.

I’m honestly not sure what the big deal is here. In the US, classes are organized by age groups. Last year, around late August, we had several kids finishing up their pre-K programs. If six or seven of those kids didn't enroll in Kindergarten, they either get moved into a preschool group if there's space, or they go into an early childhood program. Those kids are typically around 4.5 or 5 years old, whereas these "repeaters" are already 6.5—that’s a two-year gap right there. So now, they're all turning seven, while the rest of the class is mostly still under six. Even if a few of them are doing some supplemental preschool work, it doesn't change the reality that about 80% of the group is younger.

My son is absolutely head over heels for one of the teachers, though I can't say for certain if the feeling is mutual! 😁

Brian Jones8 said:😲
Wait, why is he even in a class with five-year-olds? Why isn't he with the actual preschoolers?

As far as I know, the pre-K classes are just completely packed, and our local daycare has about 28 kids in one group already. ☕ It’s not like they’re going to cram all the pre-K students into one massive room just because they're technically the same age—we aren't seeing groups of 30+ children like that. Usually, the school doesn't just tear up existing classes to fix things; they just slot the new enrollments or the kids who didn't get into their preferred group into whichever classroom still has an open spot left...

Susan James said:They definitely exist.
In our family, the biggest gap we've seen was between the kids who invited us over for their 7th birthday back in January (two little girls, quite petite, maybe around 4 feet tall) and the two who are inviting us now for their 8th.

With only about a 10-month age gap, there's at least a 6-inch difference in height.
I won't even get into 🍿

Of course age isn't everything, because kids develop at such different paces and have totally different levels of stimulation. That said, starting school a little "early" might actually be stimulating for some kids in terms of learning, especially if their social-emotional development is on track and/or if they live in an environment that isn't particularly stimulating.

On the flip side, for kids who are already facing challenges—especially with speech and language development—even delaying things (meaning waiting to start school later) can sometimes feel "detrimental." It affects their intellectual growth, but mostly their social-emotional side. When it comes to practice and learning, I think it's much easier to handle through preschool rather than jumping straight into school (assuming, of course, the parents have the capacity to encourage the child).

So, it's really vital to get a solid diagnosis with a recommendation regarding that extra year of delay.

And? My daughter is in second grade, while the girl she's playing sports with is still in preschool—not because she started late, mind you—and even so, the preschooler is already taller than mine!

I honestly cannot wrap my head around this whole idea that someone born in February 2011 is somehow at a disadvantage or "pitiful" just because there are kids born in April 2010. It makes zero sense to me!

Personally, I was born in April, and even though I started school just under the age of six and a half, I never once felt behind or had any issues whatsoever. My own child was born in January and also started at 6.5—she’s consistently getting top marks, she’s one of the most athletic kids in her PE class, and her best friends are actually nearly a year older than she is. She fits in perfectly. So, in my experience, a child starting at 6.5 instead of 7.5 isn't an inherent problem at all.

Actually, I saw a bit of a scene the other morning at daycare. I was dropping off my youngest right when a mom was there with her son, who didn't start kindergarten last year. Most of the group has just turned five, so they're basically celebrating their seventh birthdays by the time they hit the big leagues. Anyway, it was such a dramatic moment—the poor little guy was crying his eyes out because he didn't want to go to daycare, and his mom was just desperately trying to convince him that he only had to hang in there for a little while longer. And really, they still have another year of playing mostly with five-year-olds before the real transition happens...

7 out of 24

I think I read somewhere—maybe on a thread about New Zealand?—that kids there start school once they hit five. It’s more of a gradual "trickle" into the classroom based on when they turn five. They essentially solved the problem of everyone starting at the exact same age by making sure they end up in classes with peers of a similar age (give or take a few months) rather than everyone being born on the same day 😂. I'm assuming this means there isn't really a delay involved 😁
.
Quincy and Robert Rodriguez9 mentioned New Zealand earlier, so we're probably thinking of the exact same thing.

But honestly, if a 6 to 12-month gap is considered a "gray area," then enrolling a child early shouldn't be such a huge deal. It seems like one of those things where parents face judgment or side-eye from people around them (for instance, my daughter was born on April 1st, so even though she's two months later, I would have still enrolled her)

Personally, I don't care who handles what when it comes to raising their own kids, provided there’s no neglect or abuse involved.
But
That doesn't mean we can't share our thoughts on those "let them just play a little longer" excuses. If you ask me, keeping my daughter in preschool for an extra year would have actually done her more harm than good. During her last year there, she was constantly bored; she had already gone through the pre-K curriculum twice, and honestly, she was breezing through it—it was just too easy for her. What would she really gain from staying another year? Just frustration and discontent. It could even mess with her self-esteem because all her friends had moved on, leaving her feeling like she wasn't "ready," which is a heavy realization for a six-year-old to make. On the flip side, looking at her now at the end of second grade, she’s so happy, proud, and independent. Whether it's walking home by herself or managing her own phone, all that "burden" of growing up and taking on responsibilities has actually been a huge boost for her confidence.

Maybe it’s worth considering the downsides of keeping a child in daycare or preschool for an extra year when they clearly don't need it. Especially considering how many parents in our group might end up with children who are two years apart—and we all know how massive the gap in intellectual and emotional development is at that age.

And just thinking back to my own school days—I don't know about everyone else, but I started first grade at six years and four months old, and I found it pretty dull. There was zero challenge, especially in that first year, because I felt like I already knew everything they were teaching us. I can't help but wonder how much worse it would have been if I had waited an entire year to start... it probably would have been a nightmare.

Look, I honestly don't quite follow why you're pushing for a delay. I was chatting with a mom at one of our local preschools—one of those kids who actually got an extra year before starting kindergarten—and she was so lovely about it. She explained that she requested the deferral simply because she wanted her little one to have another full year of pure playtime. And she isn't the outlier here, either. Of course, that doesn't mean every parent requesting more time doesn't have much more pressing or complex reasons behind it.

In the younger group this year, they’ve grouped five kids together who actually deferred starting school. It means they aren't even with the preschoolers; they're stuck with the toddlers. I honestly can't tell if the school thought they were doing them a favor by "advancing" them, because being surrounded by kids two years younger for eight hours a day doesn't seem like much of an upgrade to me.
Since both my spouse and I work full-time, our kids are at daycare Monday through Friday regardless. Unless they're under the weather, they never miss a day. To be honest, I don't really care if they're in the preschool wing or just in after-school care, and we always have a backup plan for holidays. Because of that, delaying school didn't make any sense for my oldest (she was already about 6 and a half when the school year kicked off), and I don't see the point in delaying my youngest either—he'll be under seven too. Personally, I started school when I was barely six and a half, and my husband started right at 6.5; we never struggled with the curriculum, and missing a year of preschool certainly hasn't hindered us in life. Plus, starting school early doesn't mean you stop playing.🤷

Our banks have such bizarre fee structures. We recently had to send a payment in a foreign currency via SWIFT—it was outside the US and didn't use an IBAN—and after cross-referencing the fee schedules of about ten different major banks like JPMorgan Chase, we figured that using an EZAB transfer would be our cheapest bet. However, once we actually tried to process it, we ran into some hiccups regarding the recipient's account format. That’s when support stepped in and let us know there was actually a third payment method available that wasn't even listed in the standard fee tables! It turned out to be about half the price of the EZAB option. The best part? They handled the entire transaction on their end instead of us having to do the legwork. It all felt a bit strange and disorganized, honestly. (In the end, it cost us about $5.50, whereas the cheapest fee I could find for that amount was $50)

Lawrence Torres56 said:Wait, hold on a second—which science textbook for first graders actually includes lessons on Christmas and Easter? Seriously, since when did we start mixing holiday traditions into the science curriculum?😁
Or maybe you just forgot to mention that those lessons are all about the seasons and our traditions? Like, they present Christmas and Easter in that exact same way we tell kids how people used to prep wood for the winter or get the fields ready for planting... you know, that whole cyclical, old-school survival vibe?

Wait, what kind of lies are you even talking about here? Seriously, what am I supposed to be lying about?

Honestly, I’m completely lost when it comes to you, because what you're rambling about here doesn't have anything to do with the church, actual believers, or any of the stuff we actually cover in religious studies class.
So, you’ve got these women showing up to church who aren't mothers and aren't caregivers, right? They're just... there. It makes you wonder, doesn't it? What exactly is their role in the community when they aren't tied down to the usual family duties we always see?
Honestly, you won't find any of that "submissive to men" nonsense inside the church—it just doesn't exist there. That whole dynamic is strictly an outside thing, reserved exclusively for people who don't have even the slightest connection to their faith.
I mean, come on, even the church can’t go against Jesus' own words, right? It’s like, how can they ignore the Golden Rule—you know, that whole "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" thing? It just doesn't add up.
I mean, if devout women don't mind that they can't become priests, then why on earth does it bother people who aren't even religious? It just doesn't add up to me, you know?
Look, let's be real here—it’s not like the Church actually puts the role of being a mother on a pedestal, right? To them, it’s all about the sanctity of the family unit as a whole, regardless of whether there are actually any kids running around in that house or not.

Look, there’s a massive difference between being homosexual and actually acting on it, and honestly, if someone can't wrap their head around that distinction, then they have absolutely no business dragging the Church or believers through the mud. Just because you don't get the nuance doesn't mean the Church is inherently attacking people, so why even bother with all that finger-pointing?
Honestly, everything laid out in the Catechism is pretty spot on, isn't it? It really would be worth sitting down and actually giving it a proper read, just so we aren't all wandering around living in some total delusion based on nothing but whatever random hearsay or "he said, she said" nonsense we picked up from someone else.😁

Is there a bit of a misunderstanding here? I clearly stated that the textbook uses the exact same wording for "brushing our teeth" as it does for "going to midnight mass."
The textbook and the author aren't making any distinction between those two things whatsoever. You suggested they were, but you haven't provided any proof for that—whereas I have substantiated my point by quoting the actual text from the book.

Saying "people in the fall..." isn't quite the same thing as saying "(we) in the fall..."

I really wonder why our textbooks push these falsehoods and present this skewed image that we are all believers attending church. I’ll leave that for everyone to ponder, but in my opinion, this isn't an accident; it's intentional. After dealing with twenty-five years of this kind of nonsense from every direction, my tolerance for this blatant disrespect toward my own beliefs has completely run out.