« my life in pictures | main | so-called day off »


it was open house at paul's school this evening. it was nice to see paul's teacher again and to hear from her that he is doing well and that he has come such a long way.

i read an interesting thread today on a message board about keeping kids back in school even if they make the age cut-off for kindergarten. i remember my uncle's daughter from his first marriage had spent the year in between kindergarten and first grade in something called "transition." i think it was for students who had done passably well in kindergarten, but were not yet deemed ready for first grade (of course, my mean-spirited brother and i were rather gleeful that she had "failed" kindergarten). in retrospect, it was a good idea -- i don't think i ever knew anything about her academic performance, but i did know that she had some social readiness and maturity issues. better that she go into transition than have to repeat kindergarten and be bored. i don't think she would have benefited from just spending an extra year at home. she was only a couple of months younger than me, so i don't think they would have kept her at home, anyway.

but the reasoning some people were giving for keeping their kids back a year amazed me. keeping girls home so they can be leaders? keeping boys home so they can be bigger for sports?

paul is on the young side, so we conceivably could have held him back -- socially, maybe it would have been a good move because he is a very young five. academically it would have been silly. but according to his teacher, his classmates have tried to comfort and cheer him up during his tantrums. "it's okay," they tell him. "we lose sometimes, too." cam and i think this has worked out well for him. besides, the cut-off is there for a reason -- he was a couple months ahead of it, so why pretend that he wasn't?



powered by movable type 4.12