4 posts shown.
I started kindergarten back in '82—was six years and three months old at the time. I wasn't even the youngest; there were two other girls even smaller than me... though, truth be told, there was one girl who was over a year older than I was. It didn't exactly make a difference in how well I did in school.
Just keeping an eye on this thread... though I’ve already made my stance pretty clear. This trend of delaying things isn't great—it carries a whole chain of consequences that others have already pointed out, so I won't bore you by repeating them. Sure, some people have legitimate reasons, while others... well, maybe not. And honestly, telling me how to handle my own kid isn't much of an argument—by that logic, even public schooling would be pointless, since we could all just decide what's best for our children ourselves. As for the idea that delays aren't just about parents, but rather about who can influence the school district officials... don't make me laugh. I know at least five people who openly admitted to "smoothing over" a delay that had absolutely no basis in reality. Apparently, getting a delay approved from those "experts" isn't nearly as difficult as they claim.
The school in my town—where my kids go—has been seeing shrinking class sizes for a few years now. We’re hovering around 14 students per room, plus maybe one or two kids needing extra support. Of course, the administration acts like they're just trying not to cut staff, but if you ask me? It’s a massive win for the kids, the parents, and the teachers alike. I don't think it's always about layoffs, either; people retire, things shift—it's just easier for everyone when the groups are smaller. If only every school in America had classes of 14... wouldn't that be something?
I find these delays a bit surreal sometimes—most kids are perfectly ready for school by age six and a half, and the system is built for them. Pushing it back to seven or eight feels like gaming the system, honestly. A kid turning eight in late autumn has such an massive advantage over a typical six-and-a-half-year-old. That gap just widens when you compare a twelve-year-old to someone nearly fourteen. In my view, delaying should be reserved for actual developmental needs—concentration issues, speech delays, processing struggles—things like that. Using it just because it’s easier for Mom? That feels like unnecessary rule-bending. No reason for it. You won't believe this, but based on some specific professional criteria, school start dates were set. My oldest started right on time—she was born in January and was the youngest in her class. It seems like everyone born in February, March, or April opted for a delay—I don't get the logic. My younger one was born in July, and I actually considered enrolling her early since she has the potential, but the school psychologist advised against it. Apparently, so many parents are asking for delays now that if she started "on time," she'd be almost two years younger than her classmates?!?? It clearly feels like a trend—avoiding the standard school commitment without any real cause. The worst justification I've heard is "so they can enjoy themselves while they can," implying that once school starts, life is essentially over.
What is "over"? Does learning basic things between ages eight and eleven mean everything in life is finished? That there's no more play? That they've been swallowed by adulthood? That is such a terrible educational message to send—making kids resent school before they even step foot in it, for no reason. Honestly—the curriculum isn't even that demanding compared to what we went through. I had girls in my class who were barely six by August, and they ended up being some of the top students. Nobody thought it was weird at all.