Posted by Croc Dundee, a resident of another community, on Jan 29, 2013 at 3:24 pm
I do not trust the schools to make this decision. My son was the youngest in first grade, and in October the teacher expressed concern that he could not keep up. Upon meeting with the teacher and the principal, the principal stated that he should stay in first grade for the rest of the year and then repeat first grade the next year. My perception was that the administration wanted the revenue tied to his attendance. We pulled him out of that school and had him spend the rest of the year in a private school that had a blended kindergarten/first grade class room. We were lucky enough to have that option.
Posted by BS, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on Jan 29, 2013 at 5:13 pm
The district shouldn't make this decision. They are worried about some students having cognitive advantages? Is the purpose of the schools to teach the kids or to make everyone equal in a competition against each other? Next will they not allow smart kids to enroll?
Posted by Mark, a resident of the Jackson Park neighborhood, on Jan 29, 2013 at 7:42 pm
As it states in the article, "parents know their children best". I held my October born son back one year and it was the best thing I could have done for him. The following comment is also stupid, "And a representative with the California Department of Education wondered whether children who were held back might feel out of place, especially if their physical developments are out of step with those of their peers." Even if all the kids are the same age, they all develope at different times. My daughter started to develope 2 yrs ago, others last year and some this year, and they are all basically about the same age and no one cares (there are only 5 girls in her class, small private school).
Posted by Anna S., a resident of the Rex Manor neighborhood, on Jan 30, 2013 at 11:02 am
State law says that all children 6 and up must attend school. If we did not have compulsory attendance laws, many children could end up without an education. We have made a decision as a country that the right of children to education trumps the right of parents to do whatever the heck they want.
Posted by Parent, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on Jan 30, 2013 at 11:30 am
The reason the issue was put into the hands of the district is because of parental abuse; far too many holding their kids back. It became a national story and the action began hurting districts.
Blame the abusers if you do not like the rules. This was never an issue when I was a kid. I think there simply are far too many parents willing to do whatever to try and eek out any advantage they can dream of.
Well, it was messing things up so it had to stop. Good.
I do think there should be a review process for special needs kids.
Posted by Joan G Whiz, a resident of another community, on Jan 30, 2013 at 4:43 pm
Gee, I'm surpised Joan J Strong hasn't weighed in on this one. Joan claims that only charter schools engage in "creaming". Regardless of whether the father wants to put his daughter in kindergarten this year or delay a year, the district's influence on this smacks of public school creaming to me. Happens all over this area.
Posted by wendy, a resident of another community, on Feb 4, 2013 at 1:21 pm
Students begin academic learning in Finland at the age of 7. Finland has the best education system in the world and their students regularly score at the top of international tests. Finland is not the only western country which begins academics at 7.
Why are we pushing 4 and 5 year olds into academics? Most children are not ready to begin an academic program until they are 6 or 7 years old. They do not have the ability to sit still through an academic program. Add in that less recess is provided during the day and that day is longer. I suppose the kids who can't hack it sitting still can just go on SSRI or some other medication so they can have a laser focus and get through the day.
Kids learn vital critical thinking and problem solving skills when they are playing or engaged in a creative project.
I don't think 10 year olds belong on a campus with 13 and 14 year olds, which is how old they will be when they begin middle school.
Studies show that children perform better when they start school later. I don't understand why schools who are in the business of educating students would choose to put any students at unfair disadvantage and have these kids start school early.
Posted by Jenny, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Feb 4, 2013 at 2:36 pm
It is utterly and completely ridiculous that people cannot hold their children back a year if they feel that's what's best for the child. Notably, other districts in the area are NOT doing this. Moreover, other school districts in other parts of the country have different rules. In the unified (county-wide) school district my sister lives in, near Washington DC, the cut-off date for entering kindergarten is in August. A family moving from her district to Mountain View could conceivably end up with a child who was ineligible to attend kindergarten the previous year, but forced to go to first grade (without attending kindergarten) by these rules.
One poster states that this was never an issue years ago. That's true, but there's a reason for it. People have started holding their children en masse back because today's kindergarten is closer to what first grade was a generation ago. I have a cousin who used to teach first grade; a number of years ago she started teaching kindergarten because it was, in effect, the same curriculum that she had been teaching in first grade. Similarly (and as Wendy suggests, above), many European schools also start their academic programs *after* kindergarten.
Many children are simply not ready to sit still, listen, speak up for themselves or tackle a full day of worksheets. Some kids are still napping.
This should be the parents' decision. Boo to the Mountain View School district.