Is this a good reason to not want to delay my son's kindergarten entrance?

So if kindergarten actually is harder than it used to be, should some children be held back? Some educators, like James Uphoff, Ed.D., the author of Real Facts From Real Schools (Modern Learning Press), believe that in many instances children can use an extra year to mature socially, physically, emotionally, and cognitively. "It's the gift of time," he says. This especially applies to boys with "late" birthdays. Fred Brown, former president of the National Association of Elementary School Principals, adds, "Generally, there is a developmental delay of at least six months between boys and girls, so a boy with a late birthday may be at even more of a disadvantage."

However, the NAEYC vigorously maintains that children should go to kindergarten when they are chronologically ready—that is, when they reach the age mandated by the local school district.

Dr. Willer explains: "Readiness is a two-way street. Schools should be ready for the child, and if all children began kindergarten on time, the acceleration would have to stop." The NAEYC believes that in the long run, a child gains nothing from an extra year, and Dr. Willer points out that holding a child back may deny him the experiences he needs to mature.

Ultimately, it's up to mothers and fathers to decide. What follows are parents' most frequently asked questions about kindergarten readiness, and answers from early childhood educators.

If you were a better person you would have ...

Academics from the University of Georgia and Columbia University think they have more insight into why girls earn higher grades on report cards than boys do, despite the fact that girls do not necessarily outperform boys on achievement or IQ tests.

Christopher Cornwell, head of economics at the University of Georgia's Terry College of Business, UGA's David Mustard and Columbia's Jessica Van Parys have published a study that they say shows "gender disparities in teacher grades start early and uniformly favor girls."

The researchers analyzed data from 5,800 elementary school students and found that boys performed better on standardized exams in math, reading and science than their course grades reflected. The authors suggest that girls are truly only outperforming boys in "non-cognitive approaches to learning" -- defined as attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to learn, learning independence, flexibility and organization -- leading to better grades from teachers. The study is published in the latest issue of The Journal of Human Resources.


.
.
.
The study falls short of calling teachers sexist, but points to the fact that the majority of elementary educators are female, for the first time suggesting that a gender gap persists as a function of educators' behavioral perception of their students.

A study similar to Cornwell, et al.'s concluded in August 2011 that girls tended to earn higher GPAs, despite earning similar scores to boys on standardized exams, in part because they show more self-discipline.

For the past 20 years, the numbers of male teachers in elementary and middle school grades have stagnated at about 16 to 18 percent, according to MenTeach, an organization whose mission is to increase the number of males working with young children.

There were no statistics for grades K-3, but in 2011, the most recent year for which there are data, only slightly more than 2 percent of kindergarten and preschool teachers were male.

"The gap and discrepancy between girls' performance and boys' performance is growing ever more marked," said Massachusetts psychologist Michael Thompson, co-author of the groundbreaking 2000 book "Raising Cain," which argues that society shortchanges boys.

"There are lots of explanations for it," he said. "One is the nature of the elementary classroom. It's more feminized and it does turn boys off, perhaps because they are in trouble more or because the teaching style is more geared to girls' brains.

hawkeye10 wrote:

If you were a better person you would have ...

Well, obviously I'm not a better person, so I feel very comfortable leading with telling you to go **** yourself you disgusting pervert.

Yeah, I'll bet you loved having your kids around all day, and wanted to be around other underage children as your career.

One hundred and fifty years ago, my son would have been considered a model boy. Today, more often than not, he’s considered a troublemaker due to his failure (or inability?) to conform to the expectations of the modern educational system.

I understand that society today is much different than society in the 1800s. Most of that change is good; I applaud antibiotics and equality. I’m a big fan of the internet and indoor plumbing. But at the same time, I think our current approach to education fails to honor the needs of children, especially the needs of our boys.

Boys today aren’t fundamentally different than the boys of 150 years ago. Yet today, they’re confined to classrooms, expected to remain still for the majority of the day, and barely allowed to tackle meaningful labor or the real world until they reach the magical age of 18. Is it any wonder our boys are struggling?

Statistically speaking, boys now lag behind girls on every single academic measure; they also get in trouble and drop out of school much more frequently than girls. There are fewer boys in college than girls, and far more lost 20-something boys than 20-something girls.

Our boys are not the ones who are failing; we are the ones failing our boys.

7 years of homeschooling experience, 3 kids in public schools, including one who repeated 1st grade because of dyslexia. Not to mention education has long been one of my interests, at one point I was going to be a teacher.

omg you homeschooled? That's another reason why I am against homeschooling - people like you should not even attempt to teach anything to children, including your own. Yeah right, at one point you wanted to be a teacher, if your intellectual shortcomings had not played into it.

A concerned parent has come to us for help. Please try.

"I was among the first to get my drivers license."

So I should delay his education just so he can temporarily be the only one in his grade who can drive? And besides, it's not like he'll be the first to drive because he's a better driver. It'll simply be because he's the oldest. Again, nothing to be proud of.

And yes, I think he should be compared to kids who are biologically his own age. The vast majority of kids born on July 5th, 2010 are going to graduate high school in 2028. I don't want my son graduating a year after them.

it's better he crushed by kids older than him than by kids younger than him. At least that way, it won't be so shameful.