School closures/delays?

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.

It's not gonna bridge the gap that much, though; you could still end up with a ten-month difference between kids. 🤷

But I guess my main point is that most kids are actually ready for school by about 6.5 years old. Sure, waiting until they're 7 or even 7.5 means they'll be a little more intellectually mature—though maybe not more mature than some other six-year-olds out there—but that extra maturity isn't necessarily the deciding factor for starting first grade, since the kid was likely ready for those classroom demands a year ago anyway.

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...

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

James Alvarez2 said:So does that mean kids born Feb 2nd, 2017, end up in the same grade as kids born Jan 29th, 2018?

I was just looking at it as a fallback option. It's meant to prevent someone born in January from being stuck waiting an entire extra year just because of the calendar. The goal is to have everyone born between January 1st, 2017, and January 31st, 2018, start together—essentially bumping the group size from 6 to 7.

Ryan Stewart8 said:It's not gonna bridge the gap that much, though; you could still end up with a ten-month difference between kids. 🤷

But I guess my main point is that most kids are actually ready for school by about 6.5 years old. Sure, waiting until they're 7 or even 7.5 means they'll be a little more intellectually mature—though maybe not more mature than some other six-year-olds out there—but that extra maturity isn't necessarily the deciding factor for starting first grade, since the kid was likely ready for those classroom demands a year ago anyway.

What's the rush, then?

nimblelynx7 said:I was just looking at it as a fallback option. It's meant to prevent someone born in January from being stuck waiting an entire extra year just because of the calendar. The goal is to have everyone born between January 1st, 2017, and January 31st, 2018, start together—essentially bumping the group size from 6 to 7.

What's the rush, then?

So what's even the point?
We're still gonna have kids with a whole year between them. 🤷

There isn't any date shift that actually fixes this... 🤷

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!

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...

nimblelynx7 said:I was just looking at it as a fallback option. It's meant to prevent someone born in January from being stuck waiting an entire extra year just because of the calendar. The goal is to have everyone born between January 1st, 2017, and January 31st, 2018, start together—essentially bumping the group size from 6 to 7.

What's the rush, then?

I honestly don't see what the rush is here, 🤔
The kid is basically ready for kindergarten by pretty much every metric you can think of—socially, physically, developmentally, all of it. I mean, what’s really the point of making them sit around for another year just to stay in the exact same spot?
I actually know a few families where delaying school ended up being totally counterproductive, if I'm being honest. There were cases where kids got held back just because their parents requested it, but once they finally did start school, things just went sideways because they were bored out of their minds and weren't being challenged enough. It gets to the point where they start making excuses to skip class, like having some random stomach ache every third day, or they end up disrupting the whole lesson because they aren't engaged and just don't know what to do with themselves.
Plus, there are those other side effects that matter just as much to the kid; most of their little friend group is heading off to elementary school, so they’re left behind, and since they already finished all the preschool activities last year, the teachers don't really have anything new to teach them (other than actual schoolwork, which brings us right back to that boredom issue I mentioned earlier).
I really don't get why we should hold back a kid who is developing perfectly normally 🤷 Wouldn't it be more natural to let the challenges grow along with their abilities? At the end of the day, I guess that's how you actually keep them motivated to keep moving forward.

Michelle Nelson4 said: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...

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.

James Alvarez2 said:So what's even the point?
We're still gonna have kids with a whole year between them. 🤷

There isn't any date shift that actually fixes this... 🤷

The goal is just to make sure someone born in January doesn't have to wait an extra year just because they hit their birthday, but once you pass January 31st, you can't honestly claim they belong to the same group as those born the previous year.

It’s obvious the older kids will have an easier time in school. Honestly, I don't see any point in shoving six-year-olds into classrooms. Given our top-tier American education system, one single year won't make a dent; they'll have plenty of time to memorize Kazakhstan's GDP by heart.

So, looks like some of you guys who asked for an extension have already heard back from the registrar, but I’m still sitting here in total silence
At this rate, I’m gonna have to be the one to chase them down myself just to get a straight answer

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! 😁

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."

Ugh, don't even get me started...🤣
Not long ago, he was losing his mind over when he'd finally lose a tooth. Kids in his group already have full sets of adult teeth, while mine is still rocking baby teeth.

When one finally started getting loose last week, he was freaking out, totally stoked, yelling "FINALLY!" 😂 Now we're just waiting for it to fall out. 🍿

Sure, maybe physical differences will be his thing, but I couldn't care less.
If he waits another year to start school, he'll be in 7th or 8th grade by then—man, imagine him asking why he's growing a mustache while nobody else is. 🤣

Michelle Nelson4 said: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...

I haven't seen any posts from you yet! Feel free to jump in whenever you're ready. kaže:
I honestly don’t see what the big deal is here. The groups are organized strictly by age. Back in late August of last year, we had a specific preschool group wrapping up, and if six or seven of those kids didn't transition straight into kindergarten, they’d either get slotted into another preschool group if there was room, or they'd move into the younger toddler-prep stage. It really comes down to the math. Those kids are typically around 4 or 5 years old, whereas these "repeaters" are actually 6.5—meaning they're two full years older. Because of that gap, most of them are turning seven now, while the rest of the class hasn't even hit six yet. A few of them are doing the advanced preschool curriculum, but that doesn't change the reality: about 80% of the group is still significantly younger.

My son is absolutely obsessed with one of them, though I’m starting to suspect the feeling might not be mutual! 😁

When schools decide to postpone classes, I really feel like there needs to be a clear justification for it. It’s not just about calling things off; there should also be a solid plan in place to address whatever issue caused the delay in the first place. If we're going to pause, let's make sure we have a way to fix the problem so everyone can get back on track.
Moving a kid into a younger age group feels like you're just playing musical chairs with daycare slots, especially when there’s zero communication from the parents. In my experience, if a parent doesn't give you a heads-up that school might need to be pushed back, you end up in a real bind. This parent showed up with paperwork in June—or maybe even August—well after the new enrollment period had already closed. Honestly, it just isn't right. It’s not fair to the child, and it’s definitely not fair to the other kids who were already settled into their groups for the year.

Even if the preschool claims the child is already performing at a five-year-old level and will be just fine, I’m not really on board with that approach right now. My issue isn't necessarily with how they're handling things today, but rather that these assessments should have been completed a few years ago to get ahead of this.

The fact that daycare centers are overcrowded—and that they seem to resist letting kids move up to the next level just to keep their enrollment numbers high—doesn't justify putting a child in a group that completely fails to meet their developmental needs. I remember when my little one was struggling with certain milestones, and it felt like we were being pushed toward a specific program just because it was convenient for the facility, not because it was right for him. We have to advocate for what actually works for the kid, regardless of how full the classrooms are.
We could honestly go on forever about his mom and how she kept putting off school because of her own obsessions, but let’s be real—the way the professionals are handling this is incredibly reckless. It’s just not okay.

One way we might be able to prevent these kinds of situations is by creating mixed-age groups—maybe around three to seven kids per cluster—or at least making sure the groups are split between those who are officially school-aged and those who aren't. It’s definitely something that could be worked out, especially in those larger daycare centers or preschools, provided there's enough willingness to make the change. I remember back when my nephew was in a big center in Chicago, they tried a similar approach and it really helped balance out the energy levels!

Susan James said:

I haven't seen any posts from you yet! Feel free to jump in whenever you're ready. kaže:
I honestly don’t see what the big deal is here. The groups are organized strictly by age. Back in late August of last year, we had a specific preschool group wrapping up, and if six or seven of those kids didn't transition straight into kindergarten, they’d either get slotted into another preschool group if there was room, or they'd move into the younger toddler-prep stage. It really comes down to the math. Those kids are typically around 4 or 5 years old, whereas these "repeaters" are actually 6.5—meaning they're two full years older. Because of that gap, most of them are turning seven now, while the rest of the class hasn't even hit six yet. A few of them are doing the advanced preschool curriculum, but that doesn't change the reality: about 80% of the group is still significantly younger.

My son is absolutely obsessed with one of them, though I’m starting to suspect the feeling might not be mutual! 😁

When schools decide to postpone classes, I really feel like there needs to be a clear justification for it. It’s not just about calling things off; there should also be a solid plan in place to address whatever issue caused the delay in the first place. If we're going to pause, let's make sure we have a way to fix the problem so everyone can get back on track.
Moving a kid into a younger age group feels like you're just playing musical chairs with daycare slots, especially when there’s zero communication from the parents. In my experience, if a parent doesn't give you a heads-up that school might need to be pushed back, you end up in a real bind. This parent showed up with paperwork in June—or maybe even August—well after the new enrollment period had already closed. Honestly, it just isn't right. It’s not fair to the child, and it’s definitely not fair to the other kids who were already settled into their groups for the year.

Even if the preschool claims the child is already performing at a five-year-old level and will be just fine, I’m not really on board with that approach right now. My issue isn't necessarily with how they're handling things today, but rather that these assessments should have been completed a few years ago to get ahead of this.

The fact that daycare centers are overcrowded—and that they seem to resist letting kids move up to the next level just to keep their enrollment numbers high—doesn't justify putting a child in a group that completely fails to meet their developmental needs. I remember when my little one was struggling with certain milestones, and it felt like we were being pushed toward a specific program just because it was convenient for the facility, not because it was right for him. We have to advocate for what actually works for the kid, regardless of how full the classrooms are.
We could honestly go on forever about his mom and how she kept putting off school because of her own obsessions, but let’s be real—the way the professionals are handling this is incredibly reckless. It’s just not okay.

One way we might be able to prevent these kinds of situations is by creating mixed-age groups—maybe around three to seven kids per cluster—or at least making sure the groups are split between those who are officially school-aged and those who aren't. It’s definitely something that could be worked out, especially in those larger daycare centers or preschools, provided there's enough willingness to make the change. I remember back when my nephew was in a big center in Chicago, they tried a similar approach and it really helped balance out the energy levels!

Sign me up for all of that.
I guess the whole idea behind doing this is just to spend more time working with the kid this year, you know? Like, really getting them ready for elementary school instead of just letting them run wild, so we can see in a year if they actually caught on to everything 🤦
And honestly, the situation with the local preschools is just what it is, and I know there isn't much anyone can do about it, but that doesn't mean we should just throw our hands up and say it's fine to just enroll a kid in whatever first opening pops up, even if it's a group full of four-year-olds. To me, that just doesn't make any sense at all.

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.

Michelle Nelson4 said: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.

Forgive me, but what exactly are you even doing on this "school delay" thread?

Everything you say feels incredibly condescending. I don't know where you live or what makes you think you're some kind of expert throwing around percentages like that, but let me tell you: that's just not how things work around here.

Michelle Nelson4 said: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.

a) There aren't any extra teachers available. From what I’ve heard lately, it’s incredibly hard to find staff, whether it's for maternity leave coverage or new permanent hires.
b) Kids have a right to defer school enrollment, and preschools have to provide space or programming for them.
c) Just because you haven't heard about it doesn't mean it isn't happening.
It's definitely a thing, and it's becoming more common (having half pre-K kids and half younger toddlers).
And even if it weren't common yet, I think it's something worth considering.
It’s actually pretty easy to manage, especially since kids enroll in preschool after age three, and toddler groups are usually smaller and need to be filled out eventually. Whether they are standard classrooms or specialized Montessori or sports programs... it can be done. No one is suggesting we change everything during a child's final year of preschool, which would be a shame for everyone involved—not just the kids deferring school.

(This could even happen at the start of enrollment. Often, there's an effort to keep toddler groups very uniform, so they'll enroll kids born between May and August who barely made the cutoff. Then, toward the end of that first toddler year, they fill spots with newer enrollees who might end up starting school earlier or later than the first group.🤷

Mixed 3-7 age groups aren't just found in high-end private academies anymore. More and more daycares are doing this for various reasons, most often just to meet enrollment numbers or to keep siblings together.

I still think you're right about that mom; she probably did it on a whim without telling the daycare, so the center just placed her child wherever there was an opening. That wasn't ideal.
But we shouldn't use that one example to discourage parents from deferring school. Instead, we should encourage them to have open conversations with the daycare. When they discuss deferring, they should also plan out that extra year of childcare right then and there.

Susan James said:a) There aren't any extra teachers available. From what I’ve heard lately, it’s incredibly hard to find staff, whether it's for maternity leave coverage or new permanent hires.
b) Kids have a right to defer school enrollment, and preschools have to provide space or programming for them.
c) Just because you haven't heard about it doesn't mean it isn't happening.
It's definitely a thing, and it's becoming more common (having half pre-K kids and half younger toddlers).
And even if it weren't common yet, I think it's something worth considering.
It’s actually pretty easy to manage, especially since kids enroll in preschool after age three, and toddler groups are usually smaller and need to be filled out eventually. Whether they are standard classrooms or specialized Montessori or sports programs... it can be done. No one is suggesting we change everything during a child's final year of preschool, which would be a shame for everyone involved—not just the kids deferring school.

(This could even happen at the start of enrollment. Often, there's an effort to keep toddler groups very uniform, so they'll enroll kids born between May and August who barely made the cutoff. Then, toward the end of that first toddler year, they fill spots with newer enrollees who might end up starting school earlier or later than the first group.🤷

Mixed 3-7 age groups aren't just found in high-end private academies anymore. More and more daycares are doing this for various reasons, most often just to meet enrollment numbers or to keep siblings together.

I still think you're right about that mom; she probably did it on a whim without telling the daycare, so the center just placed her child wherever there was an opening. That wasn't ideal.
But we shouldn't use that one example to discourage parents from deferring school. Instead, we should encourage them to have open conversations with the daycare. When they discuss deferring, they should also plan out that extra year of childcare right then and there.

Look, back in the day—like, during the dinosaur ages or whatever—when I was in daycare, they’d just have two groups where half were preschoolers and half were younger. Then once the older ones headed off to elementary school, the groups would just merge. Honestly, why does everything have to be so complicated nowadays? 🤔

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.

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.