School closures/delays?

swiftbison92 said:Yeah, born a slacker 😵

Hahaha, yeah, sure, born ready 🤣

And nooo, it's not over. At least I don't think so... we haven't finished the doctor's appointment yet. As for asking a psychiatrist for a delay? I bet they'd grant it, considering they called me before even seeing the kid.
And honestly? I'm gonna fight this until I see he can actually handle himself... if he never figures it out, I'll just cry that I didn't leave him home, though maybe he wouldn't handle 7.5 any better either
I know, I'm overcomplicating things for nothing 🤦 ....

it is truly a rare thing to encounter children who "never find their way," so maybe give him a little credit here.😉
to be honest, I don't really get why you're panicking so much.🤔

swiftbison92 said:Why did you guys ask for a delay?

In my experience, my son was lagging behind his peers in almost every metric. His speech development was delayed—he didn't really start talking until he was three. During his initial evaluation with the school pediatrician, he wasn't cooperating at all; he kept turning away, his drawing skills were poor, and he struggled to complete basic tasks. Based on that, the doctor asked for my input and immediately suggested delaying his enrollment. Since his birthday is January 31st, if he had been born just two months later, he wouldn't have even been required to start school this year. We also consulted a speech therapist who recommended the same thing, and the school psychologist noted that he simply wasn't developmentally ready. It was a consensus. Even his preschool teachers agreed that delaying him isn't a loss; rather, it’s an advantage. We’ve actually been seeing a child psychologist recently, waiting for the final reports and guidance on how to best prepare him for next year. He’ll continue working with a speech therapist through his preschool program, so I believe everything will turn out fine.

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...

Michelle Nelson4 said: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...

I see where they're coming from.
Usually, those slightly older kids are a bit taller or more developed physically—it’s all those external factors at play.

That one-year gap can actually make a massive difference in how a kid looks and carries themselves.

It affects everything from their emotional maturity to their intellectual growth and current skill sets. That’s why it’s so important to focus on supporting those specific areas regardless of a birth date. At the end of the day, school cares about what a student can do, not whether their birthday invitation says "Come to my 7th birthday party" or "Come to my 8th."

Michelle Nelson4 said: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...

And I don't understand how a kid born in Feb 2011 and one born in April 2010 are even considered part of the same school generation. There's a ten-month gap there. You can't convince me those two groups are the same or that the difference doesn't matter.

Back when I was in school, the struggling students were always the ones who started at age six; they were physically smaller than the rest of us. Plenty of my former classmates who have kids now are complaining because they actually listened to some "expert" advice and sent their children to school at six.

I don't see why everyone is rushing. The IRS hires whoever they can find; they'll never run out of people. As if one extra year is going to change anything, and once it starts, there's no turning back.

Susan James said:I see where they're coming from.
Usually, those slightly older kids are a bit taller or more developed physically—it’s all those external factors at play.

That one-year gap can actually make a massive difference in how a kid looks and carries themselves.

It affects everything from their emotional maturity to their intellectual growth and current skill sets. That’s why it’s so important to focus on supporting those specific areas regardless of a birth date. At the end of the day, school cares about what a student can do, not whether their birthday invitation says "Come to my 7th birthday party" or "Come to my 8th."

It's not like everyone ends up the same height and weight later on. There are always huge physical differences.

nimblelynx7 said:And I don't understand how a kid born in Feb 2011 and one born in April 2010 are even considered part of the same school generation. There's a ten-month gap there. You can't convince me those two groups are the same or that the difference doesn't matter.

Back when I was in school, the struggling students were always the ones who started at age six; they were physically smaller than the rest of us. Plenty of my former classmates who have kids now are complaining because they actually listened to some "expert" advice and sent their children to school at six.

I don't see why everyone is rushing. The IRS hires whoever they can find; they'll never run out of people. As if one extra year is going to change anything, and once it starts, there's no turning back.

No matter how you slice it, there will always be kids in a class with a significant age gap. If they aren't the youngest, they're the oldest.
In my elementary school class, the kid who was a full year older than most of us was one of the worst students, so age alone doesn't prove anything.

Robert Rodriguez9 said:It's not like everyone ends up the same height and weight later on. There are always huge physical differences.

No matter how you slice it, there will always be kids in a class with a significant age gap. If they aren't the youngest, they're the oldest.
In my elementary school class, the kid who was a full year older than most of us was one of the worst students, so age alone doesn't prove anything.

Agreed.

And I don't really get why anyone would focus so much on physical appearance or body types.😕
When you consider everything else involved, that’s probably one of the least important factors by far.

Robert Rodriguez9 said:It's not like everyone ends up the same height and weight later on. There are always huge physical differences.

No matter how you slice it, there will always be kids in a class with a significant age gap. If they aren't the youngest, they're the oldest.
In my elementary school class, the kid who was a full year older than most of us was one of the worst students, so age alone doesn't prove anything.

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 🍿

Robert Rodriguez9 said:It's not like everyone ends up the same height and weight later on. There are always huge physical differences.

No matter how you slice it, there will always be kids in a class with a significant age gap. If they aren't the youngest, they're the oldest.
In my elementary school class, the kid who was a full year older than most of us was one of the worst students, so age alone doesn't prove anything.

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.

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...?🤷

nimblelynx7 said:And I don't understand how a kid born in Feb 2011 and one born in April 2010 are even considered part of the same school generation. There's a ten-month gap there. You can't convince me those two groups are the same or that the difference doesn't matter.

Back when I was in school, the struggling students were always the ones who started at age six; they were physically smaller than the rest of us. Plenty of my former classmates who have kids now are complaining because they actually listened to some "expert" advice and sent their children to school at six.

I don't see why everyone is rushing. The IRS hires whoever they can find; they'll never run out of people. As if one extra year is going to change anything, and once it starts, there's no turning back.

So how do we fix it?
Besides just "skipping" grades, which our system isn't built for.

This whole thread is pointless. Even if school enrollment happened twice a year, people would still whine about things being unfair because Child A is six months older than Child B... they wouldn't be on the same level.

fun fact: like 40 years ago, the cutoff was April 1st, not June 1st.

So now we're looking at a 1.4 limit.

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.

Look, we see this all the time at the local playground—some kids are clearly bigger than mine despite being younger, and vice versa. Some of them really catch me off guard 🤣.
Standardized tests and emotional maturity are the real metrics here. You have to draw a line somewhere, but in reality, everyone knows how subjective it all is.

Mark Johnson12 said:So now we're looking at a 1.4 limit.

Then why isn't it 31.3? Seriously...

Copying this official announcement from a local news outlet regarding school enrollments: Children who will turn 6 by April 1st, 2017, are required to be enrolled in first grade.

Sent from my smartphone using Reddit

James Alvarez2 said:So how do we fix it?
Besides just "skipping" grades, which our system isn't built for.

The threshold needs to move from 1.4 down to 1.2. It makes more sense. It won't solve everything, but it'll soften the gaps.

I agree that physical size isn't the deciding factor for school—intellectual capacity is—but you can't deny that an average seven-year-old is cognitively ahead of a six-year-old.
Regarding physical strain: kids today are lugging backpacks that weigh up to 30-40% of their body weight. For context, look at OSHA regulations regarding maximum weight limits for workers. Just to clarify, no one is legally allowed to force teachers to haul 40-pound loads from home to school every day.
In my view, pushing things back by one year won't cause any real harm. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if someone graduates at 17, 18, or 19.

Mark Johnson12 said:So now we're looking at a 1.4 limit.

my bad, swapped them
limit was actually 1.6...

Mark Johnson12 said:Copying this official announcement from a local news outlet regarding school enrollments: Children who will turn 6 by April 1st, 2017, are required to be enrolled in first grade.

Sent from my smartphone using Reddit

And, if you do the math—just translating what that means—it covers everyone born between April 1, 2010, and March 31, 2011. Anyone born on April 1, 2011, won't actually be school-aged for the 2017/2018 academic year.

nimblelynx7 said:The threshold needs to move from 1.4 down to 1.2. It makes more sense. It won't solve everything, but it'll soften the gaps.

I agree that physical size isn't the deciding factor for school—intellectual capacity is—but you can't deny that an average seven-year-old is cognitively ahead of a six-year-old.
Regarding physical strain: kids today are lugging backpacks that weigh up to 30-40% of their body weight. For context, look at OSHA regulations regarding maximum weight limits for workers. Just to clarify, no one is legally allowed to force teachers to haul 40-pound loads from home to school every day.
In my view, pushing things back by one year won't cause any real harm. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if someone graduates at 17, 18, or 19.

So does that mean kids born Feb 2nd, 2017, end up in the same grade as kids born Jan 29th, 2018?

It’s basically the same situation as those kids born on April 1st, 2010, versus the ones born on March 31st, 2011. It would be identical—just shifted by a month. Honestly, there’s a full year gap there, which changes everything. My little guy was born on April 1st, so I won't have to stress about him being the youngest in the class when it comes time to enroll him in 😁
. Besides, age is such a fickle metric sometimes. It doesn't always tell the whole story. For all we know, my kid might turn out to be more emotionally mature than someone born an entire year after him.